Why "Marriage Equality" really means "DEATH TO MARRIAGE"

[CopticChristian]

Please - if you’re going to address the points I raise, talk TO me, not ABOUT me. It’s rude to talk about someone behind their back. It’s even ruder to talk about them in front of their face.

Now, as for:

The point there is that it is no business of mine because this is activity between two people of the same type. It is clearly NOT the same thing as anti-semitism which is an inhuman action by one or more ‘types’ of people against another ‘type’ of person. In the case of anti-semitism, it would be Gentiles against Jews: at which point it IS my business, since I would be a Gentile. I would be speaking out against it to my own people.

Take then domestic violence: since violence causes harm to people asking for assistance from the State, it is demonstrably society’s business to legislate against that harm taking place.

The lack of SSM provision for people who don’t share our religious convictions results, in certain circumstances, from harm befalling people in same sex relationships. If they want to seek legislative protection against that harm, then it is not my job to oppose it, since I am not involved in it. And, if I did actively oppose the legislation, I would be involving myself in the private lives of other people and materially obstructing the removal of harmful situations to those people.

And if people suggest that I as a Catholic should not support same-sex marriage, then they’d be right: as a Catholic I don’t want to be same-sex ‘married’ - and if I did then contract a civil same-sex ‘marriage’, I’d no longer be a Catholic anyway.

We have no right interposing ourselves between people who are not of our beliefs in the first place.

A compassionate humble Church does not seek to throw its weight around. If it wants to encourage people to think the way it thinks, it does it by example. It shows the world what it is like to love people and where the joy is in that. It doesn’t beat them over the head with accusations of being evil or insult their humanity. It follows the example of our Holy Father in reaching out and embracing ALL people, not just those of our own faith.
I say that people who are suffering and grieving the loss of loved ones will perceive that we are the same as the people who caused them that pain and suffering. If we want to be agreed with, we won’t do it by hurting or insulting people. My whole purpose in these discussions is to illustrate how closed-minded many in the Church have become and, indeed, how pharisaical they are. And remember, the Pharisees were not at all popular with Christ… I definitely do not want to be counted among that number…

Dex,

The opposition to SSM for non-Catholic non-religious people is stupid. It is analogous to white people opposing the right of ethnic minority people marrying - which has happened in the past, when non-white people were considered to be less than human. To me it appears to many that by our opposition we give the impression that we think that people who are homosexual are also less than human.

This argument is false. The lurkers should know as should you that it begs the question. Homosexuals are not born Homosexuals. Black people are born black. Loving vs Virginia is the Supreme Court case often cited…and the notion of the “right to marry” is invoked from that case. When that notion is researched it is seen that the right to marry is pulled from another Supreme Court case where criminals were being sterilized and the “right to marry” is the “right to marry and procreate” that does not apply to Homosexuals.

If you are in favor of logic. This argument is illogical.

To those who say denying civil rights to others is somehow a ‘loving’ thing to do, then I say that’s balderdash. I say it’s obstructive and that it will push people away from God, not attract them to Him.

This argument again begs the question that there is a civil right to those that act sexually immoral. It is not a civil right because you have immoral behavior. This is not a minority like persons of color. There is not now or ever been proof that a Homosexual is born Homosexual.

All arguments are without foundation and should be discarded, ignored and avoided.

These are the arguments that Homosexuals use.

 

[markeverett49]

The opposition to SSM for non-Catholic non-religious people is stupid. It is analogous to white people opposing the right of ethnic minority people marrying - which has happened in the past, when non-white people were considered to be less than human. To me it appears to many that by our opposition we give the impression that we think that people who are homosexual are also less than human.

We have no right interposing ourselves between people who are not of our beliefs in the first place.

SSM is not at all the same thing as miscegenation laws. (Though it is worth pausing to note that those laws were novel, the result of a prevalent belief, and wrong. They should give pause to the proponents of SSM, not the opponents.)

SSM changes the definition of what marriage is. Which makes the phrase ‘marriage equality’ ring odd in my ears: ‘racial equality’ means disregard race but ‘marriage equality’ doesn’t mean disregard marriage,‘it means ‘disregard homosexuality.’ Perhaps pro-life advocates will re-brand their movement "life equality’ by which they will mean no human life may be terminated without due process, which requires an advocate for the ‘accused’. and they will be able to say anyone who is in favor of abortion is against ‘equality.’ I don’t think many people who find the ‘marriage equality’ idea irresistible would find this compelling at all and instead they would say there is a crucial difference here…

 

[DexUK]

SSM is not at all the same thing as miscegenation laws. (Though it is worth pausing to note that those laws were novel, the result of a prevalent belief, and wrong. They should give pause to the proponents of SSM, not the opponents.)

SSM changes the definition of what marriage is. Which makes the phrase ‘marriage equality’ ring odd in my ears: ‘racial equality’ means disregard race but ‘marriage equality’ doesn’t mean disregard marriage,‘it means ‘disregard homosexuality.’ Perhaps pro-life advocates will re-brand their movement "life equality’ by which they will mean no human life may be terminated without due process, which requires an advocate for the ‘accused’. and they will be able to say anyone who is in favor of abortion is against ‘equality.’ I don’t think many people who find the ‘marriage equality’ idea irresistible would find this compelling at all and instead they would say there is a crucial difference here…

Ok, if you don’t like the phrase ‘marriage equality’ (and I can see the validity in the point you raise about the use of the words in comparison with other uses), why not think of it as ‘orientation equality’ then, since that is what the actual meaning of the phrase is meant to be?

 

[marymary1975]

Sorry Dex, it sounds like you’re living in fairy-tale land and seem oblivious to the stranglehold Satan has on this world.

Let’s review the list of “civil rights” that have not been denied but encouraged in Western society over the last century and see how this has drawn people to God:

• more relaxed divorce laws, leading to the break-up of families, neglected children (especially when it comes to education in the faith), a rise in single-parent households, and a steep rise in de facto relationships and sex outside of marriage;
• laws allowing easy and to-birth access to abortion, resulting in hundreds of millions of unborn human beings being killed;
• laws allowing easy and cheap contraception (and now, in the US, having to be provided for by Catholic business owners under insurance too), resulting in the rise of casual sex, STIs, infidelity, etc.
• laws allowing easy access to pornography (especially over the internet), resulting in an earlier sexualisation in children and sexualisation of persons, greater abuse of persons, probably more masturbation (and who knows what personal and relation affects this has), etc.
• laws allowing homosexual civil unions and same-sex marriage, resulting in the normalisation (with the aid of the media) of homosexual activities and lifestyles…
• with all this, belief in God and Christianity in particular, has reduced radically in the West.

Gee, Dex, you’re right - no wonder everyone is flocking to church on the weekend and worshiping God with all their hearts, minds, bodies and strength.

The Church needs to make a very vocal stand to serve as a witness to truth and as an alternative. Yes, we should do so in love, but we need to do so. This will require all the faithful to stand up and do the same. I don’t think we can acquiesce on this issue as a matter of “separation of Church and State”. This is a natural law issue.

I have to say I agree with this. Deux you just don’t want to see it.

 

[DexUK]

I have to say I agree with this. Deux you just don’t want to see it.

I see the arguments. I just think they’re specious.

Allowing people who want to get married to actually get married is not going to prevent other people from getting married or cause them to be less committed to the idea of getting married. Why on earth would encouraging people to get married discourage other people? The proposition simply doesn’t hold water.

The only argument that holds any water for me is the religious one whereby the definition of marriage is that which is determined by the Church. But people who aren’t members of the Church aren’t going to consider that they should be bound by its definitions. We don’t demand legislation banning the sale of meat on Good Friday or that people who aren’t Catholic should be condemned as sinful for eating meat on Ash Wednesday. The Church should only be speaking to its own members in respect of the rules it expects people to follow. While it can proselytise about its beliefs to everyone, that doesn’t mean it has a right to prevent non-Catholics from living their lives the way they want to. That is simply a non-negotiable if the people of the Church wish to be charitable and tolerant towards people who are not of their beliefs. And clearly those homosexuals who want to be ‘married’ to each other are not of our beliefs. And, of course, those that are homosexual and claim to be Catholic and yet still want to be ‘married’ clearly can’t do that within the Church because it is not and will never be available to them. If they want it, then that’s tough because what they want isn’t possible.

Oh, and my user name is DexUK, not Deux. I am one person, not two

 

[jonathan_hili]

Dex, it’s the same reason so many people now don’t even bother to get married and live as de facto couples. “Marriage” has become tarnished by what has happened over the past one hundred years. By tampering it even more by redefining it, the State is just showing more contempt for the institution, which society already reflects.

Of course, redefining marriage won’t prevent others from getting married. But it will prevent them from getting married with the same idea of marriage that we were brought up in, just as lax divorce laws altered people’s perceptions. Who knows how many people at the altar thought: “Oh well, if it doesn’t work out we can always get divorced”. When you also conditions arrangements like pre-nups and such, you can see that the idea that “divorce is a viable and easy option” does change our perception of marriage and commitment to it. Likewise, stating that marriage is not an exclusive partnership between a man and a woman but is something any adults “who are in love” can enjoy, means that it will further cement certain ideas into the minds of those approach marriage (such as, marriage is not about children, I can marry anyone I like, etc.).

I’m sorry, Dex, but if this becomes the norm, it’s going to be hard for anyone - save God - to save marriage.

 

[DexUK]

How are people’s ‘ideas’ of marriage going to change just because other people have the right to the same thing?

Mr Smith and Miss Jones are still going to have the same idea of marriage as they ever did. They aren’t going to suddenly wake up one morning and decide that they’re going to have a gay marriage instead of a straight one. That would be impossible since they’re opposite genders. Everything that marriage ever was to them will remain the same. Nothing changes for straight people. Not one iota of difference. There is no substantive difference on any level for two straight people. If they had a casual view of marriage before, it would remain casual regardless of whether people whom they would never have married in the first place had the right to the same civil institution that they have.

Allowing homosexuals into the civil institution of ‘marriage’ does not change the way it works for heterosexuals. It can’t change it. All that happens is that the civil authorities no longer take any notice of the genders involved. Meanwhile religious authorities are free to continue with the definitions of sacramental marriage as ever they always did.

Anyone with any honesty would recognise this.

 

[marymary1975]

I see the arguments. I just think they’re specious.

Allowing people who want to get married to actually get married is not going to prevent other people from getting married or cause them to be less committed to the idea of getting married. Why on earth would encouraging people to get married discourage other people? The proposition simply doesn’t hold water.

The only argument that holds any water for me is the religious one whereby the definition of marriage is that which is determined by the Church. But people who aren’t members of the Church aren’t going to consider that they should be bound by its definitions. We don’t demand legislation banning the sale of meat on Good Friday or that people who aren’t Catholic should be condemned as sinful for eating meat on Ash Wednesday. The Church should only be speaking to its own members in respect of the rules it expects people to follow. While it can proselytise about its beliefs to everyone, that doesn’t mean it has a right to prevent non-Catholics from living their lives the way they want to. That is simply a non-negotiable if the people of the Church wish to be charitable and tolerant towards people who are not of their beliefs. And clearly those homosexuals who want to be ‘married’ to each other are not of our beliefs. And, of course, those that are homosexual and claim to be Catholic and yet still want to be ‘married’ clearly can’t do that within the Church because it is not and will never be available to them. If they want it, then that’s tough because what they want isn’t possible.

Oh, and my user name is DexUK, not Deux. I am one person, not two

My problem with your argument is that you keep on repeating that two people of the same sex getting married is not going to deter others from marriage. That is not the issue and that is not what the OP was talking about it. The issue here is whether there is a movement with an orchestrated plan to destroy the traditional family. If your answer to that is no, then you just don’t want to see it.

 

[DexUK]

My problem with your argument is that you keep on repeating that two people of the same sex getting married is not going to deter others from marriage. That is not the issue and that is not what the OP was talking about it. The issue here is whether there is a movement with an orchestrated plan to destroy the traditional family. If your answer to that is no, then you just don’t want to see it.

Two homosexuals can’t have children together. It isn’t biologically possible.

Meanwhile, when it comes to other people, heterosexuals are doing a fine job destroying the traditional idea of ‘family’ all on their own. They don’t need any help from homosexuals to do that! Homosexuals aren’t about to dilute the means of procreation.

Yes, children should be born into a stable mother-and-father unit. We all know that. I actually know a number of homosexual people who also agree with that while still wanting the ability to ‘marry’ another of their own gender, should the right person turn up. But the proposition that allowing the 2% of the population that is currently unable to marry due to their sexual orientation to then be able to marry others of their own gender will somehow mean “DEATH” to the concept and actuality of marriage for the remaining 98% is bonkers. Sorry, but it’s alarmist prejudiced nonsense.

 

[marymary1975]

And Dex I also don’t agree with your idea that within the church things with regard to marriage are going to stay untouched. The SCOTOUS every year restricts more and more the freedom of religion clause and pushes secularism more and more as official religion and with all the current lawsuits going on, I wouldn’t be surprised that in the future the church will have to step away completely from legal marriage.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Mr Smith and Miss Jones are still going to have the same idea of marriage as they ever did.

Huh? How can that be true when the idea of marriage in people’s minds has changed so dramatically over the past century, to include, for instance: openness to divorce, use of contraception, not having children, a trial relationship before marriage, possibly (for some) open-marriages, etc.? I’m not saying it’s going to happen overnight but it will happen over time. I mean, give it a generation or two. These things are generational changes, after all.

Allowing homosexuals into the civil institution of ‘marriage’ does not change the way it works for heterosexuals. It can’t change it. All that happens is that the civil authorities no longer take any notice of the genders involved. Meanwhile religious authorities are free to continue with the definitions of sacramental marriage as ever they always did.

Anyone with any honesty would recognise this.

Of course it will change the way it “works” because now, it isn’t exclusively for heterosexuals and being heterosexual, i.e. able to conceive children, has officially nothing to do with marriage. Don’t you think it’s important if civil authorities don’t begin to take notice of our genders? Isn’t that sending us a message about what “gender” is, namely, irrelevant?

Religious authorities are free at the moment, sure - just like the one’s in Denmark but then, that’s a State Church, I guess - but how long they will remain free is the question.

I guess it must be the dishonesty inside me that doesn’t want to recognise this.

Still, I guess when pornography was legalised, and abortion, and contraception, etc. etc. advocates and defenders said it wouldn’t cause any social harms whatsoever. Hmmm…

 

[marymary1975]

Two homosexuals can’t have children together. It isn’t biologically possible.

Meanwhile, when it comes to other people, heterosexuals are doing a fine job destroying the traditional idea of ‘family’ all on their own. They don’t need any help from homosexuals to do that! Homosexuals aren’t about to dilute the means of procreation.

Yes, children should be born into a stable mother-and-father unit. We all know that. I actually know a number of homosexual people who also agree with that while still wanting the ability to ‘marry’ another of their own gender, should the right person turn up. But the proposition that allowing the 2% of the population that is currently unable to marry due to their sexual orientation to then be able to marry others of their own gender will somehow mean “DEATH” to the concept and actuality of marriage for the remaining 98% is bonkers. Sorry, but it’s alarmist prejudiced nonsense.

you are again bringing up the wrong issue.and you are not answering my question: whether there is movement with an orchestrated plan trying to destroy the traditional family? Simple yes or no answer.

Go back and read all the previous posts in response to your second paragraph.

 

[DexUK]

you are again bringing up the wrong issue.and you are not answering my question: whether there is movement with an orchestrated plan trying to destroy the traditional family? Simple yes or no answer.

Go back and read all the previous posts in response to your second paragraph.

I don’t accept the premise of your question that SSM is in any way connected to the ‘destruction of the traditional family’ - because, as I said, those in a SSM aren’t physically capable of conceiving a family. As far as families are concerned, it’s irrelevant.

Yes, divorce, single-parenthood, abortion, etc ARE part of the problem that is affecting the traditional image of the family, but even if you outlawed divorce and abortion, SSM would still have no effect.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t accept the premise of your question that SSM is in any way connected to the ‘destruction of the traditional family’ - because, as I said, those in a SSM aren’t physically capable of conceiving a family. As far as families are concerned, it’s irrelevant.

Yes, divorce, single-parenthood, abortion, etc ARE part of the problem that is affecting the traditional image of the family, but even if you outlawed divorce and abortion, SSM would still have no effect.

Dex,

You unacceptance is founded in your thoughts and beliefs…

SSM has is in no way connected to the destruction of a traditional family in your thinking.

If you believe that SSM has no relevance, and if you believe that whether or not it is moral or not has relevance then do we dismiss ourselves from protesting against NAMBLA, since what one person does with another is not our concern?

 

[marymary1975]

So basically, you believe that people will decide they are homosexual as a result of some sort of contagion

Do you really think that people are THAT weak willed?

Great so after infering to me that things pushed by society (like abortion, divorce -radical feminism which is what I originally posted to you) and the media DO NOT affect people’s behavior because people are sooo wrong willed, now you are telling that the same things I told you do affect people’s behavior.

Second, I don’t know if you have realized there is something called sperm banks which 50% of their clients are lesbians and there is something called surrogacy, and that homosexuals are 100% capable of conceiving now a days thanks to surrogacy and artificial insemination. So your argument that homosexuals are capable of conceiving therefore they are irrelevant to the family is flat out wrong.

 

[fix]

Fix,

I do not know…this sentence does give pause and reflection…

I believe you make a good point. I have children and grandchildren and I believe any lurker that has children would wonder as you suggest. Most parents are reasonable and I believe that a reasonable person should be shaken to his core by the fact some poor kid will be seeing two, or more, men acting as mother and father.

You are correct to point out Pope JPII calling it a new ideology of evil. It is evil. The absence of God in these situations=evil. When someone focuses on the emotionalism of the homosexual persons, then this dismisses the care we should be giving to the children and the rest of society. We must care and for those that don’t care we should hear silence.

You and I can imagine little kids across the land will be indoctrinated into the false Gospel of “gay” love. If you stand with Christ you will be called prejudiced. If you have concern for the innocent children you are a hater. This imagined reality should be kept in the forefront of every conversation with those that promote this emotional plea. I understand that some may suffer however what is more important and I would say, you would agree…The Best Interest Of The Children…

There is no way such thinking can be reconciled with the faith and lurkers should recognize faithless thinking, acting, speaking and speak up with Faith in truth.

The assertion that mis-defining marriage will not change negatively affect the culture is patently false.

It will indoctrinate children and others into this peculiar idr

 

[fix]

Fix,

I do not know…this sentence does give pause and reflection…

I believe you make a good point. I have children and grandchildren and I believe any lurker that has children would wonder as you suggest. Most parents are reasonable and I believe that a reasonable person should be shaken to his core by the fact some poor kid will be seeing two, or more, men acting as mother and father.

You are correct to point out Pope JPII calling it a new ideology of evil. It is evil. The absence of God in these situations=evil. When someone focuses on the emotionalism of the homosexual persons, then this dismisses the care we should be giving to the children and the rest of society. We must care and for those that don’t care we should hear silence.

You and I can imagine little kids across the land will be indoctrinated into the false Gospel of “gay” love. If you stand with Christ you will be called prejudiced. If you have concern for the innocent children you are a hater. This imagined reality should be kept in the forefront of every conversation with those that promote this emotional plea. I understand that some may suffer however what is more important and I would say, you would agree…The Best Interest Of The Children…

There is no way such thinking can be reconciled with the faith and lurkers should recognize faithless thinking, acting, speaking and speak up with Faith in truth.

The assertion that mis-defining marriage will not negatively affect the culture is patently false.

It will indoctrinate children and others into this peculiar ideology.
It will affect the children in the custody of these groupings.
It will affect how the law treats families.
It will affect how the schools teach about families and social mores.
It will affect how people form their consciences.
I could go on but any person who thinks more deeply than the usual shallow emotionalistic
facile agitprop will immediately see the grave harm that is coming.

 

[marymary1975]

The assertion that mis-defining marriage will not change negatively affect the culture is patently false.

It will indoctrinate children and others into this peculiar idr

Of course it indoctrinates children, children in first grade now are getting speeches regarding homosexuality and.the parents arent even informed. I had to take my daughter out of.public school after she came house saying they got a talk on homosexuality and she was only 6 years old.

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t accept the premise of your question that SSM is in any way connected to the ‘destruction of the traditional family’ - because, as I said, those in a SSM aren’t physically capable of conceiving a family. As far as families are concerned, it’s irrelevant.

Yes, divorce, single-parenthood, abortion, etc ARE part of the problem that is affecting the traditional image of the family, but even if you outlawed divorce and abortion, SSM would still have no effect.

Dex,

Do you accept that there are 10 commandments?

Do you accept that the 6th commandment is as follows from the Catechism?

CHAPTER TWO
“YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”

ARTICLE 6
THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT

• I. “MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM . . .”

2331 "God is love and in himself he lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image . . … God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion."115

Do you accept the vocation of Chastity as spelled out in the Catechism?

Do you believe that offenses against Chastity include

Lust
Pornography
Masturbation
Homosexual acts
Prostitution
Adultery
Rape
Incest

and that anything you do to promote any of these sins against Chastity is in defiance of the vocation of promotion of Chastity?

In other words supporting SINS AGAINST CHASTITY regardless of the person, regardless of the situation is a violation of the 6th commandment.

 

[markeverett49]

Ok, if you don’t like the phrase ‘marriage equality’ (and I can see the validity in the point you raise about the use of the words in comparison with other uses), why not think of it as ‘orientation equality’ then, since that is what the actual meaning of the phrase is meant to be?

I think “orientation equality” would be more honest, yes, though I don’t think the orientations are equal.