Why don't we come up with a new version of marriage for gay people?

[fix]

Since the Church is against gay marriage because marriage is the union between a man and woman, why don’t we come up with a union that is not called marriage that is between the same sexes? The Church states that homosexual activity is “unnatural” but God made them homosexual! Plus I read somewhere (I think it was on here) that humans have something in their brain that gives them emotions or something about sex while for animals it is just instinct. I know that same sex marriage isn’t exactly procreation but the couple could adopt a child that could really use a good home. What harm does that do? In my opinion, two people who love each other very much does not degrade the sanctity of marriage, people who cheat and treat their spouse badly do. Also, is it ok in the Church’s eyes for a homosexual to have a partner that they love as long as they are not married and they never have sex? Anyway, for those of you who are strictly against gay marriage, I think there are WAY BETTER things to worry about in today’s world than two people loving each other. Don’t we need more love in this world?! Anyway, that’s just my opinion and I am proud of it.

Changing the name of some act or some situation does not change the essence of the act. But, changing the name can help desensitize people to evil actions.

You know like calling abortion a choice or claiming making it legal is good and helpful.

See, playing with language and civil law is not doing justice to any person.

 

[Lujack]

The religious institute of marriage is the best environment for a child to be brought up in. This is partly why the government has laws protecting this union. A child needs a mother AND a father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Why would anyone in their right mind want to encourage people to purposely put a child in a situation where they are not brought up by both parents? It is already bad enough out there.

First of all, not all homosexual couples have children. Secondly, a child adopted by a gay couple that had to fight for the right to do so is in a better spot than many children. While the ideal situation is always a good mother and a good father, two good mothers or two good fathers is still better than a bad mother and a bad father.

Laws for married couples affect their rights with regards to each other, not just their laws with regards to their children.

And if you really believe that permanent partnership would encourage monogomy in these relationships then you are truly a little naive. I don’t buy it.

Why don’t you buy it?

 

[Dale_M]

They are saying they reject what they call separate but equal situations.

Exactly! Because separate is not equal. Which is why is it is a civil rights issue.

 

[lizaanne]

Provide me with something please , that shows that to be true.

Get this book: Annulment: The Wedding That Was This will answer just about every question you could have about the annulment process. It is an excellent resource.

Are you saying that the church considers invalid marriages to be “good”?

No. I am saying that non-Catholics who marry may still be in a “good and natural” marriage. Such a marriage IS valid - it just is not sacramental.

I understood that only non catholics who marry civilly had marriages that were natural and good.

You are correct - you misunderstood my statement.

How could something that is a mortal sin for a catholic be good?

I did not say CATHOLICS who marry in a civil service. While I was not specific, my intent was to say non-Catholics who marry civilly.

~Liza

 

[RobbyS]

Are you a Catholic? It’s probably not a good idea to boast that you hold an opinion in opposition to the church. Please pray on that one.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that God “makes” homosexuals but he certainly allows Same Sex Attraction to develop. We want to help people in that situation focus their lives toward the greater good that God is directing them to.
It is not a sin for a person with SSA to have friends of the same sex but they may not cultivate romantic relationships with or without sex.

Marriage is a Sacrament. We only have 7 of those. It’s a very good thing to protect and defend the Sacraments of the Catholic Faith.

I am not so kind. God allows same sex attraction for, I think, the same reasons he allows other deviant behavior. Notice that we have people who cross-dress, we have the transgender types. and other such. Are we to offer ceremonies that joyn couples like this as well?

 

[buffalo]

I am not so kind. God allows same sex attraction for, I think, the same reasons he allows other deviant behavior. Notice that we have people who cross-dress, we have the transgender types. and other such. Are we to offer ceremonies that joyn couples like this as well?

Right on! There needs to be temptations to achieve self-mastery.

 

[Holly3278]

Because we don’t need a “new version of marriage” for them. They don’t need any official unions. If they had them, they would only feel justified in being active homosexuals and we don’t want that.

 

[Seatuck]

Get this book: Annulment: The Wedding That Was This will answer just about every question you could have about the annulment process. It is an excellent resource.

No. I am saying that non-Catholics who marry may still be in a “good and natural” marriage. Such a marriage IS valid - it just is not sacramental.

You are correct - you misunderstood my statement.

I did not say CATHOLICS who marry in a civil service. While I was not specific, my intent was to say non-Catholics who marry civilly.

~Liza

Thanks for clarifying your statement. One more clarification. Any two baptized non catholics who are free to marry may obtain any type of marriage they like and it will be both valid and sacramental.

 

[CatholicLeft]

I don’t understand your question - what is “it” that is not happening with or without it? Did I confuse you from my previous post?

Oh, sorry, I was talking about homosexual relationships that occur whether they are civilly joined or not. By not allowing them to have a civil union will not stop them from sinning.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Gays are not seeking something similar to the legal contract of marriage, but called something else, because any such thing would necessarily be less than marriage. Such unions would lack the legal history of marriage and would require an ongoing legal struggle to force equal recognition (by employers, insurance companies, sheriff’s departments etc.) of of this new non-marriage marriage.

This is one of the most deceptive fallacies about civil equality out there. A high-profile government attorney in CA (working for the most liberal city in CA), and who argued against Prop 8, has specifically said that it is entirely possible to rewrite & update & amend law to provide equal rights for civil unions and marriages – to make the rights of both groups interchangeable & equally punishable if violated. This is a red herring and one more excuse to muscle in & appropriate a name that describes a particular category of union, based on false statements & deceptive tactics.

No. If the gay couple wants to be “married,” push for elevating civil union status to that of married status (as the pro-gay attorney said), for the purpose of civil protection. You can call your union anything you want, and you will call your union anything you want. You can additionally join a religious organization that will agree to “bless” your union or call it sacred, & even go so far as to call it a “sacrament” in that organization. But quit trying to force your lifestyle on society by forcing a contortion of the language on all of society.

One more thing:
“Separate but equal” does not refer to nomenclature. This is another distortion of legal history. It refers to phony equivalencies. In fact, it’s the opposite of the situation being described. Separate but equal referred to educational disparities initially (facilities, resources), that were IN NAME equal but in reality unequal. In this case, the proponents are seeking a phony “equality of name” which as a practical matter is not in the same category as man-woman marriage.

The opponents of separate-but-(un)equal education argued for equalized access in reality (which for gays is realizable without name changes, as I said above). Further, the situation is not parallel because with education there was no new radical category being created which was redefining education by the very fact of that change.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

If
Marriage is X
And
Marriage is not X

Then

Marriage does not have Existence (X - X = 0)

Therefore,

Anywhere Traditional Marriage
Differs
From Gay Marriage

Marriage does not exist
But in name only

Therefore,

The addition of Gay Marriage
Does not add to Traditional Marriage
It subtracts from Traditional Marriage.

 

[KingAlfred]

Gays should suppress their urges and abstain. Otherwise, they live in grave sin. Public celebration of homosexuality marks a serious compromiise of our moral integrity. It’s destructive of our Western culture.

 

[fix]

First of all, not all homosexual couples have children. Secondly, a child adopted by a gay couple that had to fight for the right to do so is in a better spot than many children. While the ideal situation is always a good mother and a good father, two good mothers or two good fathers is still better than a bad mother and a bad father.

What you state here is not true unless we redefine what good means. You make it sound like there is no alternative in this society which is not true.

And I would add this:

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case…
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

 

[chris_molter]

God made me a kleptomaniac. Can we implement a economic and legal system that permits me to steal whatever I want, whenever I get the urge?

God made me an ephebophile. Can we lower the age of consent to puberty?

You’re assuming that SSA isn’t a disorder. It is. It’s a result of the fall, just like any other proclivity towards sin.

 

[Lujack]

What you state here is not true unless we redefine what good means. You make it sound like there is no alternative in this society which is not true.

And I would add this:

I agree with the idea that the best parents are a man and a woman, but if we had to make a ranking, I suspect it would come out like this:

1. Involved, caring and loving mother and father
2. Involved, caring and loving same-sex couple
3. Uninvolved, uncaring, and poorly prepared mother and father
4. Uninvolved, uncaring, and poorly prepared same-sex couple

I have a hard time believing that a same-sex couple that fully commits themselves to being parents will be worse than a mother and a father who take only a cursory interest and do a poor job.

 

[fix]

I agree with the idea that the best parents are a man and a woman, but if we had to make a ranking, I suspect it would come out like this:

1. Involved, caring and loving mother and father
2. Involved, caring and loving same-sex couple
3. Uninvolved, uncaring, and poorly prepared mother and father
4. Uninvolved, uncaring, and poorly prepared same-sex couple

I have a hard time believing that a same-sex couple that fully commits themselves to being parents will be worse than a mother and a father who take only a cursory interest and do a poor job.

I do not accept your ranking as valid.

It is a contrived situation.

 

[Lujack]

I do not accept your ranking as valid.

It is a contrived situation.

What’s contrived about the situation? It isn’t even a situation, but rather a concept.

Who’s in better shape, a kid with parents who can never be ideal because they are of the same sex, but at least take an interest in their kid, or a man and a woman who are just bad parents?

 

[fix]

What’s contrived about the situation?

It is not as if there are only 2 alternatives as in a “bad” opposite couple or a “good” same sex couple.

Two homosexuals living as man and wife is contrived as well.

Children have rights.

 

[Dale_M]

A high-profile government attorney in CA (working for the most liberal city in CA), and who argued against Prop 8, has specifically said that it is entirely possible to rewrite & update & amend law to provide equal rights for civil unions and marriages – to make the rights of both groups interchangeable & equally punishable if violated.

Its an interesting claim. Do you have a link to his or her discussion of this?

 

[Lujack]

It is not as if there are only 2 alternatives as in a “bad” opposite couple or a “good” same sex couple.

Two homosexuals living as man and wife is contrived as well.

Children have rights.

You are right, it isn’t as if there are only two alternatives, but that doesn’t mean that children being parented by a “good” same sex couple aren’t better off than those parented by a “bad” traditional one. There are a lot worse situations that a child can wind up in, and we ought to put more effort into correcting the worst possible situations, as opposed to spending time trying to eliminate an option that a lot of the time, still comes out all right.

Ideally, every child would have a good mother and a good father, but that is not the case right now.