Why ban gay "marriage"?

[ConstantineTG]

The reason SSM proponents have to ask permission from the majority is that THEY are the ones seeking a radical - revolutionary - change to the status quo. Why now? What’s changed?

Achieving an orgasm through homosexual activity has probably been around since The Fall and gay “marriage” has always been an anathema. In fact, the “straight” institution of “marriage” is one that gay activists used to revile as a symbol of right wing puritanism. (No sex before marriage? Until death us do part? To the exclusion of all others?)

Why would a group that espouses complete sexual freedom and optional multiple-partner promiscuity NOW want to sign up for an “old-fashioned” notion like marriage which has out-dated Judeo-Christian biblical connotations?

It’s not a case of why would they want to get married.?

It’s a case of why would they want to get married?

“Homosexual activist says gay ‘marriage’ isn’t about equality, it’s about destroying marriage”

http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/c2c/share/35/357/723/3572355_370.jpg

They want marriage today because of the rights attached to it. Because married couples get tax breaks, hospital visits, legally get to share property, etc. If there were no legal benefit to marriage, I’m 100% sure they would have never asked for marriage.

 

[Lion_IRC]

They want marriage today because of the rights attached to it. Because married couples get tax breaks, hospital visits, legally get to share property, etc. If there were no legal benefit to marriage, I’m 100% sure they would have never asked for marriage.

In .au there is ZERO government tax benefit differential between de facto or legally married.

The Australian Govt. wrote :

A person is considered to be your partner if you and the person are living together or usually living together and are:
•married
•in a registered relationship (opposite-sex or same-sex), or
•in a de facto relationship (opposite-sex or same-sex).

Furthermore, I cant ever recall $$$ being front and center of SSM lobbying.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I don’t think we should promote it, and if we are asked our opinion on it or to give our voice to it (like during elections) we (Catholics, Orthodox, all Christians) should certainly oppose it. But I believe now, more than ever, that there is only so much we can do. And that we should focus more on increasing the spiritual lives of people in our respective Churches. That is, despite the legality of abortion and same sex marriage, we ensure that at least those who belong to our Churches would not get an abortion or would ask for two people of the same gender to be married. It was that way in the Roman Empire. Many sinful acts were socially acceptable, but that didn’t stop Christians from being Christians. We shouldn’t act like our faith will crumble down to the ground if other people commit sin in front of us legally.

Your mention of Rome is a propos, Constantine. It’s true, legalising same-sex marriage, as with abortion, will not cause our faith to crumble to the ground, but it may well cause our society to crumble to the ground, just as what happened with license-ridden Rome. Furthermore, there are potentially thousands (tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands) of souls beloved by God who may be going to hell because of the filth our society is promoting (and I’m obviously not just meaning same-sex marriage here) and we should be fighting to help everyone see the truth, regardless of whether they are Christians or not.

Καλό Πάσχα, by the way.

 

[Lasting_faith]

Actually, you did answer your own question. As Christians (and Catholics) we can not endorse a marriage that is not a marriage. Hence The RCC must make this clear also outside The Church.

 

[Porknpie]

Actually, you did answer your own question. As Christians (and Catholics) we can not endorse a marriage that is not a marriage. Hence The RCC must make this clear also outside The Church.

Suggest listening to my favorite Jesuit’s homily in my signature for May 1st. He speaks to how the Holy Spirit will protect the Church on faith and morals despite all the secular errors that lead people away from holiness.

Knowing this is most reassuring and comforting.

As Catholics we need to speak the Gospel of Truth, even if (virtually) none will believe it. The Truth is the Truth even if none believe it…a Lie is a Lie even if everyone believes it.

Pork.

 

[ahs]

Thank you all. You’ve given me a lot to think about.

And sorry for using the wrong language to ask my question. Seems to be a hot button to use the word ban and marriage. I’m admittedly not very well-versed, seeing as I’m a straight married woman and I’ve never really looked into this much before because it was never an issue for me. Now that I’m Catholic and have a well-known set of beliefs associated with being Catholic people like to debate me on my personal views and I’m not the best debater.

I’m not that great at debating either (especially not in person). One of the bet strategies I’ve learned to employ in real-life discussions (face-to-face) is to confidently say, “I don’t know exactly how to respond to that, but I can find the appropriate answer and get back to you.” That does 3 things for you: 1) you retreat without having lost any ground with the person, 2) you’ve established rapport and shown a willingness to be honest and seek truth wherever it might lead, and 3) when you DO get back with them (and you WILL!! ) it will be on YOUR terms…when, where, and how YOU choose…and that puts you in the driver’s seat.

Another great thing you can do is read a book called “How to defend the Faith, without raising your voice” by Austen Ivereigh. It covers all the latest “hot-topics” and shows you how to find the positive intentions behind the arguments and reframe the arguments while de-fusing the oppositions concerns.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In .au there is ZERO government tax benefit differential between de facto or legally married.

The Australian Govt. wrote :

Furthermore, I cant ever recall $$$ being front and center of SSM lobbying.

Of course they’ll never say its about the money, nobody will take their side if they do that. But it is about the money. You can see it in some of those interviews on TV about those who are asking for SSM. They’d say why can’t they visit their partner in hospital when only family is allowed, or let them share property the same way married couples do. It’s all about the laws that protect married couples.

I doubt there’s no tax break in Australia for married couples. It’s standard in most countries around the world. I live in Canada and we both have our legal roots in the British legal system. Also, besides the tax break there’s the other stuff I mentioned. Another big point is being named beneficiary for insurance.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Your mention of Rome is a propos, Constantine. It’s true, legalising same-sex marriage, as with abortion, will not cause our faith to crumble to the ground, but it may well cause our society to crumble to the ground, just as what happened with license-ridden Rome. Furthermore, there are potentially thousands (tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands) of souls beloved by God who may be going to hell because of the filth our society is promoting (and I’m obviously not just meaning same-sex marriage here) and we should be fighting to help everyone see the truth, regardless of whether they are Christians or not.

Καλό Πάσχα, by the way.

If you’re worried about society crumbling, then you should be fighting all the other immorality, not just same sex marriage.

Also, at some point, we can only do so much to save other people’s souls. Making same-sex marriage illegal certainly won’t prevent these same people from committing the same sins they are committing today. Performing acts of Christian love will go a longer way of saving souls than fighting legal battles.

 

[jonathan_hili]

If you’re worried about society crumbling, then you should be fighting all the other immorality, not just same sex marriage.

I agree. That’s why you’ll find many who oppose same-sex marriage also support the unborn’s right to life, fight against pornography and the objectification of people, call for more social justice, try to be charitable in life, etc. We definitely need to fight for as much as we can, even though there are priorities.

Also, at some point, we can only do so much to save other people’s souls. Making same-sex marriage illegal certainly won’t prevent these same people from committing the same sins they are committing today. Performing acts of Christian love will go a longer way of saving souls than fighting legal battles.

True too. We can only do what the Spirit will enable us to do, and let God take care of the rest. However, we shouldn’t simply give up when resistance is put up against us. The early Christians were martyred for not giving up. This is not simply a legal battle, it is a social and moral battle, in the same way as legalising abortion isn’t primarily a legal battle: it is a battle over what is a human being and how much protect the unborn deserves, and in the same way that combating slavery isn’t a legal battle. Incidentally, I’d say that standing up for a proper understanding of marriage, human complementarity and what men and women are as sexual beings is an act of Christian love.

 

[Captain_America]

The Big Lesson of the 20th Century was that you cannot separate law from morality . . . despite the very cool slogan about “can’t legislate morality.”

Saying something is legal is at minimum a tacit social acceptance of something. I’m distressed about the recent “let’s okay pot smoking” stuff for this reason.

So legalizing a marriage format for homosexuals is essentially granting social approval to a kind of sexual addiction/perversion.

 

[campbellronald7]

I am so in agreement with you OP. I don’t understand why people feel the need to enforce their own beliefs on others. Thou shall not judge, right? I believe the law is beginning to fall in line with both of our mindsets. Here is a website sponsored by the Massachusetts government with information regarding same sex marriage ceremonies: www.lgbtmassvacation.com/marriage. This is progress!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am so in agreement with you OP. I don’t understand why people feel the need to enforce their own beliefs on others.!

As others have already pointed out in this thread, the recognition of same sex marriage actually enforces the beliefs of same sex couples on the rest of us. We have to subsidize their tax breaks. We have to provide wedding services like flourists and caterers under penalty of law. We have to allow our children to be taught the “normalcy” of same sex marriage is schools.

If same sex couples want to get together and love each other and call each other husband or wife or whatever, they already can do that without societal recognition. But they want more. They want to impose their belief on the rest of us. So if you are against people enforcing their beliefs on others you would not support this movement.

 

[Dmcmullen31]

I understand why we, as Catholics, do not agree with gay “marriage.” I put marriage in quotes because I do not believe a marriage, in the sacramental sense, can exist outside of a heterosexual couple. I understand why the Church will not recognize these “marriages.”

But why ban them in the legal/civil sense? I don’t see how a same sex couple is hurting anyone but themselves and, while I would love for these folks to not commit the implied sinful acts, I don’t see how we can justify forcing anyone who does not share our beliefs to follow the behaviors associated with them.

Does this make sense? Tell me where/if I’m wrong on this topic. It’s one that’s been bothersome for me, as I have gay friends from my pre-Catholic life, and it’s really the only issue where I feel like I’m not 100% in line with the Church.

When we turn our backs on sin it weakens the fabric of following God’s laws. All you have to do is look at Sodom and Gomorrah to see how God reacts to this kind of sin.
Gay people should be shown the same respect as anyone but making laws that say “oh that’s ok” when our guidline should be what God says in His Word the Bible.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

• the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
• posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
**
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed. **