N
nydas
Guest
Yet no one has provided any PROOF that there is/will be any negative impact on society like so many of you suggest.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
Coder
Guest
The issue is not about society from a this-worldly perspective. Rather, we teach the truth in love so that all can be united with Jesus now and in heaven. We humans have no power except to cooperate with God therefore human sin will have no negative impact on God’s eternal plan. Even now, all is subject to Him and he only allows our sin in His patience, love, and mercy. Catholics seek to live on earth as though in heaven.Yet no one has provided any PROOF that there is/will be any negative impact on society…
So you see, we don’t call people to Jesus because we are concerned about the “impact on society”. We call people to Jesus because we seek their eternal life. When people have heaven as their goal, the societal problems are taken care of. Jesus tells us to seek first the kingdom of heaven and all else will be handed unto us. So we tell homosexuals to seek heaven and follow Jesus, and the “social impact” will take care of itself.
V
Valke2
Guest
Maybe that’s not your issue. But the issue that was being discussed by the poster was the impact of gay marriages on society.The issue is not about society from a this-worldly perspective.
V
Valke2
Guest
the difference being…?Marriage is a covenant, not a contract.
C
ChristIsTheWay
Guest
Not that I am jumping into the discussion or anything, but a quick search over at Webster’s Online Dictionary provides the following:the difference being…?
Definition: Covenant
Covenant
Noun
- A signed written agreement between two or more parties (nations) to perform some action.
- (Bible) an agreement between God and his people in which God makes certain promises and requires certain behavior from them in return.
- Agree to a covenant.
- Enter into a covenant.
Contract
Noun
- A binding agreement between two or more persons that is enforceable by law.
- (bridge) the highest bid becomes the contract setting the number of tricks that the bidder must make.
- A variety of bridge in which the bidder receives points toward game only for the number of tricks he bid.
- Enter into a contractual arrangement.
- Engage by written agreement; “They signed two new pitchers for the next season”.
- Squeeze or press together; “she compressed her lips”.
- Draw together; “The fabric shrank”.
- Be stricken by an illness, fall victim to an illness; “He got AIDS”; “She came down with pneumonia”; “She took a chill”.
- Make smaller; “The garment contracted in the dryer”; “The heat contracted the woollen garment”.
- Compress or concentrate; “Congress condensed the three-year plan into a six-month plan”.
- Make or become more narrow or restricted; “The selection was narrowed”; “The road narrowed”.
- Reduce in scope while retaining essential elements; “The manuscript must be shortened”.
V
Valke2
Guest
Generally, a contract can contain more than one covenant. In Hebrew, there is no difference between the two as far as I know.Based on this quick search, the difference seems to be that covenant is a more specific term than contract and that covenant seems to mean more than an ordinary agreement between two or more parties. I guess covenant has a “stronger” meaning when it comes to that. I guess you can draw your own conclusions on that. Maybe someone else here can provide a more indepth explanation.
K
kellie
Guest
I can only answer based on what I know about Australian law making.Because the bible says it, right? Well what about…
If the government has the right to define marriage, we must then ask what parameters limit those decisions. Does it stop at gender? What happens if Bush and other right-wing nutjobs decide that only Christians can get married? Can a government decide that mixed marriages are illegal? Seriously, where does it stop?
The only solution is to get government out of the marriage business. It has no business getting involved in the first place. Marriage is typically a religious ceremony, and the civil aspects of marriage is nothing more than civil contracts that the government can later enforce, which it should do. But that’s it. The government should not be involved in deciding who can get married.
The only question that should come up when someone wants to get married is this: Are they legally able to enter into contract? If the answer is yes, then they can get married. End of story.
Parliament make laws based on society at the time.
They see a need for a new law, due to a growing trend within society, and a need to make a legal boundary regarding it, so people have the right to do this trend, and have recourse when others interfere with that right.
The laws of a land such as Australia can be as simple as the Currency Law which rules what is considered legal tender within our lands. The logic of this law is easy to see.
Other laws are not so easy to see the logic, but the laws are only made due to society trends anyway, so deep down, society knows there is a need for any particular law.
Marriage needs to be set down in a legal system as it is a “trend” that needs to be officially recognized so all parties who have the right to marriage know the boundaries, and no arguments can occur when 2 or more people differ on opinions as to what a marriage is.
Marriage is such an important part of people’s lives that it is labelled an institution. The marriage of 2 people becomes public record, and the very essence of a marriage is to live together until death, and raise children.
Look back to when marriages first ever happened, and that is the reason they started. To raise children within a unit, so that the unit can teach the children the ways of the society with which it lives.
Some marriages may not produce children for whatever reason, but the underlying goal of every marriage is to build a unit that will raise the next generation and teach the next generation about the ways of the society in which it lives.
How else would we learn our society’s ways?
Therefore, regardless of whether homosexuality is a sin or not, marriage is not for homosexuals.
2 homosexuals may fall in love and wish to be with each other until they die, however, that does not mean they are entitled to marriage.
Let them come up with their own means of acknowledging one another’s lifetime commitment to each other, just as heterosexuals came up with the institution of marriage.
Think of how much money people spend on a wedding. Makes you realise how highly regarded marriage is to society. Then think of the negative impact homosexual marriage would make to this institution. The view would be that if anyone can get married, then it can’t be all that special anymore.
Why do you think gold is so valuable? As it is rare.
If gold was everywhere, the way wood is, then it would have the same worth as wood.
Marriage needs to be kept for the “select”, meaning heterosexuals, to keep it “gold”. It needs to kept to the high esteem it is held in, and as it has been held in for centuries. So that people will work towards it, as it is so vital to the role of raising children, and improving society with new members who know the ways in which we live.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
First, those who propose the change from the existing laws have the burden of proof. Merely claiming “hate” or “bigotry” is not proof.Yet no one has provided any PROOF that there is/will be any negative impact on society like so many of you suggest.
Secondly, while attempting to pull together some links regarding the harm of homosexual “marriage” on traditional marriage, I found David Virtue already did this quite well. http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4394
This article offers evidence that recognition of homosexual unions is harmful to traditional marriage. It includes many links that demonstrate the damage done by legally recognizing homosexual marriage. I think the social experiments in Scandinavia offer compelling evidence. I could elaborate, but I suggest instead that you read the link.
K
Karin
Guest
thank you for that link…it really does explain things VERY WELL!First, those who propose the change from the existing laws have the burden of proof. Merely claiming “hate” or “bigotry” is not proof.
Secondly, while attempting to pull together some links regarding the harm of homosexual “marriage” on traditional marriage, I found David Virtue already did this quite well. http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4394
This article offers evidence that recognition of homosexual unions is harmful to traditional marriage. It includes many links that demonstrate the damage done by legally recognizing homosexual marriage. I think the social experiments in Scandinavia offer compelling evidence. I could elaborate, but I suggest instead that you read the link.
B
blessedtoo
Guest
You rock! This is helpful info for argument! Good work!First, those who propose the change from the existing laws have the burden of proof. Merely claiming “hate” or “bigotry” is not proof.
Secondly, while attempting to pull together some links regarding the harm of homosexual “marriage” on traditional marriage, I found David Virtue already did this quite well. http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4394
This article offers evidence that recognition of homosexual unions is harmful to traditional marriage. It includes many links that demonstrate the damage done by legally recognizing homosexual marriage. I think the social experiments in Scandinavia offer compelling evidence. I could elaborate, but I suggest instead that you read the link.
F
fix
Guest
Yet no one has provided any PROOF that there is/will be any negative impact on society like so many of you suggest.
- One’s idea of “negative” impact needs to be based in authentic truth. If relativism is the basis then the word negative will not have an authentic meaning. Just as the terms health and pathology can be used improperly so can terms like negative.
- Part of the proof can only be discerned if one understands what virtue is and what vice is.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
Nydas,The only question that should come up when someone wants to get married is this: Are they legally able to enter into contract? If the answer is yes, then they can get married. End of story.
The Catholic church’s foundation on it’s stance on homosexual acts stems from Christ’s two commandments (from the Gospel this past Sunday).
We are to love God with all our heart, mind and strength. We are to love our neighbor as ourself. Further, we are to love one another as Christ loved his disiples as He said during the eve of the Last Supper.
To see this you have to look below the surface. God isn’t trying to give us laws that we are to blindly obey. Although if we do not undestand His teachings through the catholic church we should blindly obey as we learn and research the foundational aspects of the teaching(s) of which we do not understand.
What helps me to better understand the teaching of the church is to first try to understand the sacrement of Matrimony. If we were to live with no moral absolute when it comes to exercising our basic human instint to satisfy our sexual desire where would the world be? We must contain and channel this desire the way that is so beautifully directed in the entire story of salvation from Genesis through Revelation. This is the only way we can bask in the joy God desires for us.
Our love for our spouse may begin as eros love, or erotic love. But it progresses to agape love, the kind of love Jesus has for us. The kind of love we are to have for all our neighbors but can be most paramount and displayed to our spouse. This love is a love that surpasses all other descriptions or definitions of love. It’s a love where we desire good for our neighbor. It’s a love that manifests itself throughout of lifetime. It’s a love that is the pinacle of our joy, it’s a love that “is God”. Not, of God, or from God but is God.
We cannot have this kind of love by allowing our erotic selfish desires to direct our actions. Actions such as homosexual activity, sex outside marriage or divorce. We can only experience this kind of love with our spouse “as two become one flesh”.
May I suggest to you reading or listening to Pope John Paul II’s Theology of The Body, or (more easily understood and consumed) Christopher West’s rendition of JPII’s work.
Homosexuality isn’t condemned because it is dirty, or because the church is prudish or because the church wants to limit ones desires. Homosexual activity is condemned because it sidelines what God wants for us. Love. His Love.
C
Coder
Guest
Yes, and we teach Catholicism including that the temporal order cannot be considered without respect to eternal life.But the issue that was being discussed by the poster was the impact of gay marriages on society.
The impact on scoiety of homesexuality is to promote error and live in error about the meaning of the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit.
V
Valke2
Guest
This thread reminds me of the game “telephone”
D
Digger71
Guest
Is this a serious post? Were you having a laugh?I can only answer based on what I know about Australian law making…
The increase in children being born out of wedlock preceeededededeeddd civil partnerships by years in most western countries.
An arch conCON servative moans about the concept of marriage being undermined…what he means is his concept, or his groups concept. But really the banning of polygamy for (is it?) mormons undermines their concept of marriage. And same-sex marriages really just reinforce the concept that marriage is about love and committment, not genital arrangement. So that supports modern (18C+) concepts of romantic marriage. Hmmmm.
A collapse of consensus over what marriage means? There never was a CON census, there was lip service to the supposed ideal but the reality was that polygamy and same-sex unions were imposed by authority and the use of force. They became secrets thus reinforcing conservative views on reality. They didnt see it so it didnt exist and their way was the right way.
polyamory will link people weakly and temporarily? Like marriage was always strong and permanent (by making divorce illegal)…just another imposing, imposed by force to make conservatives feel like they were normal…
Groups want group marriage to exist? Hmm, back to that consensus thing. Looks like once you stop forcing one man one woman what people really want comes out. And obviously not all of them want what the conservatives want.
Oh The Horror
B
blessedtoo
Guest
An arch conCON servative moans about the concept of marriage being undermined…what he means is his concept, or his groups concept. But really the banning of polygamy for (is it?) mormons undermines their concept of marriage.** And same-sex marriages really just reinforce the concept that marriage is about love and committment, not genital arrangement.** So that supports modern (18C+) concepts of romantic marriage. Hmmmm.
Sorry, you are wrong on this. The state has always had an investment in the marriage of one man and one woman, quite apart from any religious agenda.A collapse of consensus over what marriage means? There never was a CON census, there was lip service to the supposed ideal but the reality was that polygamy and same-sex unions were imposed by authority and the use of force. They became secrets thus reinforcing conservative views on reality. They didnt see it so it didnt exist and their way was the right way.
What possible vested interest does the state have in promoting marriage? How does it serve the common good?
**If such rights are extended simply to facilitate the mutual affection between two individuals, there is no real benefit to society in such an arrangement. The state is not in the business of making people feel good or subsidizing personal happiness. If that were the case, then any group of people or even business partnerships could claim benefits. **
tfp.org/tfc/1049_reasons_to_oppose_same-sex_%5Emarriage%5E.htm**It is exactly because traditional marriage goes far beyond the mutual affection of the two parties that makes it an irreplaceable social good and necessitates the conferring of those 1,049 benefits. **
D
dude5749
Guest
ok lets get someone in here who has gone thru the issues that a homosexual would go thru. deppression lets c a mental disorder and an emotional issue hmm ok i am a homosexual and i know from experience that wen ur told what u r is wrong it can cause deppression and other things so bassicaly wen u live in a world that screams ur an afront to god ur evil and what not then ur gonna be depressed oh yea look at the original hebrew bible the word used to describe homosexuals was meant unclean not really a sin i dont know about you but i think that if wat the bible says is true and god loves us all un-conditionaly then whats the problemDispite the euphamism of “gay”, a great many homosexuals suffer depression. They have a shorter lifespan than heterosexuals. There are a number of other health issues that our culture doesn’t discuss, and in the meantime individuals suffer because they don’t hear the truth that down deep we all really know but may not want to hear.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.