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

[jonathan_hili]

Oh my, I hope you are not saying that all males are cranky. I would like to think that I keep my hubby happy (I am a woman, BTW).

Haha! I hope not!

Rather, males can be good friends, but not good faithful spouses to one another. I think because of the makeup of men, that is, the testosterone, hunting spirit, etc. a faithful marriage of two men is very unlikely indeed.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I am saying not to oppose unjust laws is to support them. Can you imagine being “agnostic” on pro slavery laws?

I know but technically it’s not the same thing. However, it doesn’t mean sitting on the fence is necessarily okay. Remember the Laodiceans?

 

[CopticChristian]

Well isn’t that nice…?

Telling a Catholic to leave the Church… How very Christian of you.

In telling me I should not be listening to the Church, you just lost any hope of getting a hearing from me, my friend.

And, indeed, nowhere is it a dogma that I should always and everywhere agree with the Church. The Church has defined dogmas that I, as a Catholic have to believe, such as the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the existence of transubstantiation, etc.

But I am free to act within my own conscience about whether or not I agree with what the Church tells the rest of the world to do.

Note - AGAIN - that I am not telling anyone that ANY Catholic should contract a same sex ‘marriage’. Neither am I telling ANYONE that a Catholic should be allowed to commit sodomy or adultery or any other sins. I am telling people though that we are, in the words of the Bible, to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s - i.e., in this case, the right of the secular State to make and enact rules that it sees fit for people who are not Catholic to abide by. We have higher rules, rules that contradict the State’s and that is fine and I do not, for one second, deny those rules… but I am being told that I do not mean what I mean. Well, I will keep right on repeating that I do mean what I mean, and nobody else may tell me that I don’t.

I am repeatedly misrepresented here. My words are repeatedly taken and portrayed as opposing the Church and that in doing so I am therefore sinful and not Catholic. Well, I have news for you: the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly over the acts and desires of people WHO ARE NOT CATHOLIC. The Catholic Church is not a secular authority because, shock horror, 82% of the population of the planet are not Catholic (even nominally). These people have the right to make their own rules. If we want to stop those rules, we need to be in the majority. If we were in the majority, that would be just fine, but we’re not. And the Church, the Pope even, recognises this. Now I know exactly where my loyalty lies. And I won’t be told that I am to leave the Church because some people here are SO uncharitable towards the rest of the world that only wishes to live its life peacefully and on its own terms.

I’m sorry if I’m coming over aggressive now. That’s what being told to ‘run very fast away from the Church’ does to me. It is my home and my life. Talk about ‘uncharitable…’ What a thing to do to a person! To tell them that is appalling. Some people should take a very long hard look at themselves in the mirror and do a long hard examination of their souls.

Dex,

I and others disagree with you and I have summarized the thoughts of Fix/Forum Elder for your and other’s consideration. It might be prudent to consider these as the only answers to any of your posts…

Thus spoke Fix…in response to your assesment…on Same Sex Marriage and Homosexuality.

**Abortion and Same Sex marriage are intrinsically evil. Both are sins that cry to heaven for justice. Both destroy souls. Both are examples of unjust laws. Both laws teach others to sin.

Children are central to the issue. To deny the obvious is to be oblivious to reality.

Anyone who obtains happiness from objective mortal sin is deceived. To claim any Catholic should support evil is beyond words.

There is no love in affirming sin. Your position is not Catholic.

What is true is that Catholics are bound to reject unjust laws. It does not have to be a matter of dogma to bind under pain of mortal sin. There is ample evidence in the CCC, encyclicals, Vatican directives, bishop’s statements, and basic moral theology that contradicts your words. In fact it is frank to state that this position insults intelligence.

We must all disagree with support of unjust laws. First, support for these unjust laws is morally wrong. To support the effort or the law is to support SSM. There is no logical way around that. It is like supporting pro abortion laws.

Secondly, religious arguments are fine. The Christian faith has and must influence the law.**

So, supporting Same Sex Marriage and Homosexuality is like supporting pro-abortion laws, evil is evil.

 

[CopticChristian]

This simply untrue. Catholics are bound to reject unjust laws. It does not have to be a matter of dogma to bind under pain of mortal sin. There is ample evidence in the CCC, encyclicals, Vatican directives , bishops statements, and basic moral theology that contradicts your words. In fact, I must be frank and tell you your position insults intelligence.

Fix,

Let us think rationally here…Dex believes he must follow his conscience as he says here…

But I am free to act within my own conscience about whether or not I agree with what the Church tells the rest of the world to do.

What fool would deny that following our conscience is not rational. Is there no one righteous, no not one and we recognize that many go astray…

What fool would not read and study the Catechism and what our Bishops say, are we to say that revealed truths and teachings are bunk, shall it never be, and we look in the world and ask ourselves…will these evil doers never cease for God is with the righteous…is our conscience static or dynamic, should we believe it is something that is not living and vital that grows or formed, well of course, it is formed and should be formed, and in forming our conscience we see in the Catechism the following…

The Formation of ConscienceThe formation of a good conscience is another fundamental element of Christian moral teaching. "Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act" (CCC, no. 1796). “Man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. . . . His con¬science is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary” (GS, no. 16).

we note that the Church rightly teaches that the conscience is dynamic, growing, living and should be formed…

Because our conscience is that inner sanctuary in which we listen to the voice of God, we must remember to distinguish between our sub¬jective self and what is objectively true outside ourselves. We can be sub¬jectively in error about something that is objectively true. On the objec¬tive level, if our conscience is “correct,” then there is no error between what is internally perceived to be true and truth itself. If there is an incorrect conscience, that means that the conscience is erroneous in its view of truth.

Is that voice we hear, the voice of God, or the voice of our own error filled thinking and to know and to create right thinking we continue to form that conscience…

There are **some rules to follow **in obeying one’s conscience. **First, **ilways follow a certain conscience. Second, an incorrect conscience must be changed if possible. Third, do not act with a doubtful conscience. We must always obey the certain judgments of our conscience, realizing that our conscience can be incorrect, that it can make a mistake about what is truly the good or the right thing to do. This can be due to ignorance
in which, through no fault of our own, we did not have all we needed to make a correct judgment.

and the Church rightly judges that ignorance may need correction…

However, we must also recognize that ignorance and errors are not always free from guilt, for example, when we did not earnestly seek what we needed in order to form our conscience correctly. Since we have the obligation to obey our conscience, we also have the great responsi¬bility to see that it is formed in a way that reflects the true moral good.

however ignorance will only get us so far…

A good conscience requires lifelong formation. Each baptized follower of Christ is obliged to form his or her conscience according to objective moral standards. The Word of God is a principal tool in the formation of conscience when it is assimilated by study, prayer, and practice. **The prudent advice and good example of others support and enlighten our conscience. **The authoritative teach¬ing of the Church is an essential element in our conscience formation. Finally, the gifts of the Holy Spirit, combined with regular examination of our conscience, will help us develop a morally sensitive conscience.

The Church tells us that we must continually form that conscience using the Word of God, study, practice and note this…“Authorative Church Teaching”…also notice this “The prudent advice and good example of others support and enlighten our conscience”…have we not done so…now one could argue that this information is from the USA Catechism for adults and does not apply to the UK…however see here…

UK Bishops themselves speak as if speaking in the USA

catholicnews.org.uk/Home/News/2012/Statement-on-Same-Sex-Marriage

The meaning of marriage matters. It derives that meaning from its function as the foundation of the family.

The government has chosen to ignore the views of over 600,000 people who signed a petition calling for the current definition of marriage to stay, and we are told legislation to change the definition of marriage will now come to Parliament.

We strongly oppose such a Bill. Furthermore, the process by which this has happened can only be described as shambolic.

We urge everyone who cares about upholding the meaning of marriage in civil law to make their views known to their MPs clearly, calmly and forcefully, and without impugning the motives of others. We urge all parties to ensure their Members have a free vote. It is not too late to stop this Bill.

What more can we do to aid our brother in need?..we all should pray

 

[DexUK]

thetablet.co.uk/latest-news/5195

“There can be same-sex partnerships and they need respect, and even civil law protection. Yes, but please keep it away from the notion of marriage. Because the definition of marriage is the stable union between a man and a woman open to life,” Cardinal Schönborn said.

Not so far away from my conviction. Wise man. SSM enacted in civil law may be called ‘marriage’ as far as legislation is concerned but it won’t be open to life, simply because of the nature of it. The Church however will not view such arrangements as marriage in sacramental terms. Perhaps people here need only take a small step to modify their thinking to the way a Prince of the Church does and can stop telling me I’m wrong, since I clearly believe the same thing a Cardinal does (and much the same thing as has been reported about the Pope himself).

I feel a lot better now knowing I’m in the right!

 

[CopticChristian]

thetablet.co.uk/latest-news/5195

Not so far away from my conviction. Wise man. SSM enacted in civil law may be called ‘marriage’ as far as legislation is concerned but it won’t be open to life, simply because of the nature of it. The Church however will not view such arrangements as marriage in sacramental terms. Perhaps people here need only take a small step to modify their thinking to the way a Prince of the Church does and can stop telling me I’m wrong, since I clearly believe the same thing a Cardinal does (and much the same thing as has been reported about the Pope himself).

I feel a lot better now knowing I’m in the right!

Dex,

Feeling right, being right and right thinking are in order…here are some other things your mentor says…

catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-consultant-defends-cardinal-schnborn-in-parish-council-flap/

During the homily, Cardinal Schönborn noted that the Church’s teachings on sexuality are part of “the Creator’s master plan,” in which “sexual union only corresponds to the order of creation when it is embedded in a marriage between a man and a woman.”

But he acknowledged that many people “don’t live according to the master plan” – possibly because “it was not presented or taught to them as a genuine possibility,” or because they “honestly believed that they were simply unable to follow God’s master plan.”

lifesitenews.com/news/vienna-cardinal-same-sex-couples-need-civil-law-protection?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=855793dfa6-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_04_12_2013&utm_medium=email

“Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity,” the document reads.

A bill recognizing such unions would constitute a “gravely unjust law” that would “obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage,” the document continues, adding that such a law’s “inevitable consequence … would be the redefinition of marriage.”

He also says we need to evangelize and bring those lost souls the truth

 

[jonathan_hili]

thetablet.co.uk/latest-news/5195

Not so far away from my conviction. Wise man. SSM enacted in civil law may be called ‘marriage’ as far as legislation is concerned but it won’t be open to life, simply because of the nature of it. The Church however will not view such arrangements as marriage in sacramental terms. Perhaps people here need only take a small step to modify their thinking to the way a Prince of the Church does and can stop telling me I’m wrong, since I clearly believe the same thing a Cardinal does (and much the same thing as has been reported about the Pope himself).

I feel a lot better now knowing I’m in the right!

Sorry Dex, that won’t cut mustard.

Marriage is a social secular institution, not only a sacramental one. Even the Church recognises certain non-sacramental marriages as valid.

Now you can say: “Legalised same-sex marriage won’t be marriage”, but practically everyone in society will view it as marriage, even many Catholics. I’m still not understanding why on earth you want to put the Church and dedicated Catholics in such an uphill battle trying to bring society to its senses? I mean, it’s kind of like saying, “I know dear that little Johnny is playing with the matches and petrol, but once he burns himself, we’ll take him to the doctor”, instead of taking away the matches and petrol!!!

The question is: what should we as Christians be doing in the face of evil? You seem to suggest that we should let people and society go forward in evil - even if this evil is going to affect us and our families in a very negative way! - without doing anything because these people and society are not Catholic.

That sounds way too much like countenancing slavery or other evils: “Oh, I’ll never own a slave, and neither should any Catholic, but if others in society want too (after all, they’re not Catholic) and promote slavery as okay, well, I don’t think we should interfere.”

The only way I think you can justify your point, is if you believe:
(i) homosexual actions and unions are not morally wrong;
(ii) homosexual actions and unions are therefore better for society and people than their absence;
(iii) the Church will face less or no opposition in speaking out against same-sex unions and actions as a result of legalising same-sex marriage;
(iv) legalising same-sex marriage will have no or negligible negative affects on Catholics, our children (and children’s children), and others of goodwill in society.

And again, what about legalising polygamy??? (After all, I’m sure it’ll make some Mormons and Muslims quite happy.)

 

[Publisher]

I read most of these posts and think…“Really?!! That’s all you got? Really?!!”

You expect the average person to really embrace your belief that if Tom and Ray who live down the street in that nice well maintained Cape Cod with the georgous front yard with the tulips and cherry trees in blossom…the nice manicruced lawn…the two boys they are raising are polite and respectful. The two boys come home badgered and belittled by YOUR children who tell them their fathers are evil and going to hell…or who brutalize the children of gay parents because of your religous beliefs…you expect the average person, whom you claim is "begiled by satan’ and have no moral compass, to embrace your claim that marriage equality will destroy marriage for straight people? That’s what youl’re claiming?

Linda and Beverly have two wonderful boys…who are at the top of their class and embody all the things most parents wish for their children are “evil” and “disordered”, while “your” children taunt them mercilessly are somehow “good: and “godfearing”? “Your” children beat up the children of gay parents…“your children” speak aweful names at the children of same sex parrents…the laws against 'bullys” are agianst YOUR CHILDREN.

It is claims like this that will lose the “culture wars”…well…not lose…but “have lost” the culture wars. Go ahead and make these claims…in fact spread the word with your every breath and action. Your claims make no sense to most of the “common people”…the common people hear the hate…they witness the violence…the see the discrimiantion your claims foster…no one is duped…people know they have a better moral compass than the one you offer.

Continue to tell people they really don’t love each other because same sex relationships cannot be "loving’ or “lasting”…then have your divorces and brokent homes…your children watch you and see your unhappiness in your “marriages”…they witness your tensions and fights…yet they experience the laughter and joy in same sex families.

That’s all you have? Same sex marriage means the “death of marriage”? Please, continue to tell your neighbors they are void of any moral compas…they cannot make these decisions on their own…they need a “church” to tell them how to feel and how to think and what to believe…Please…continue…oh my God…please continue…PLEASE!!!

If the so called “war” is lost it’s not because of same sex marriage…it’s because YOU claim to have a moral certitude and everyone else are “dupes” of “satan”.

The only ones believing your statements…are those who think like you…most people have a higher opinion of their own moral compass than you do…it’s not same sex marriage that will be the end of marriage…it is your arguements against same sex marriage that belittle marriage reducing it to sexual gratification…lust…devoid of “real love’…that’s a great arguement for the average man…but wait…the 'average man” on the street has no capability of making moral decisons without the guidence of a “church”…

Yeah…it’s not same sex marriage that will destroy marriage…same sex marriage will strenghten the bonds of marriage…and the common man is realizing THAT is TRUTH…and the church is wrong…completely wrong…so PLEASE…continue your war…PLEASE continue to make public your claims of “morality”…PLEASE CONTINUE. You are the best friends same sex marriage advocates have.

PS…there is the distinct possiblility after this little post…the "powers that be’ will insure your isolation…of course I don’t know this for sure…just supposing.

 

[CJECulver]

What kind of twisted understanding is that of what it means to be a follower of Christ?

Would that be the same Christ who said, “Go and sin no more? Uh, well, unless of course it makes you happy and you’re not a follower of mine anyway then of course who am I to tell you what do 'cause that’d be unChristian (and I should know, huh?) and … well … just forget I said anything; didn’t mean to hurt your feelings and all. So sorry. Kum-bah-yah.”

That Christ?

No doubt that will cause some to feel indignant. How dare I tell them they’re wrong?

Boy, does that sound familiar.

Who is it that is suffering from pride over compassion though?

Absolutely nobody in this discussion, Dex. Absolutely nobody.

“Compassion”, “caring”, “tolerance”. Yes, they are hallmarks of Christianity, Dex. But on the Church’s terms, not yours. You don’t get to pretend the Church is supposed to be “compassionate” and “tolerant” while getting to define for yourself what those terms mean.

Your insistence on trying to reduce Christianity to some sort of relativistic, namby-pamby, positive-affirmation club is, to be absolutely frank, insulting. Is that really what you think the Incarnation was all about? God Almighty becoming man just so we could all sit around feeling good about ourselves?

Who wants to impose rules over being a light that attracts people freely?

They’re not rules, Dex. They’re God’s moral law, entrusted by God to the Church. The Church is neither free to change God’s law nor to set it aside just because someone’s feelings might get hurt. And if that doesn’t jive with your definition of “tolerance” then you might want to get that checked when you’re down talking to your bishop as well.

Who’s Church am I in?

I don’t know, Dex. I don’t know. All I can say is you’re not in the Church you seem to think you are.

And, BTW, I’m also interested in hearing your answer to the polygamy question.

 

[josh987654321]

The very nature of homosexuality means to use the organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for, this is why we say it’s disordered and Immoral, If people religious or non-religious want to reject “Immoral” than okay, but they can’t reject “design or disordered” as thats just fact.

Two men or two women are just not compatible sexually, the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman dictates this fact. Therefore trying to unite two men or two women under the same word as marriage is illogical.

Marriage is a union in which both partners give each other fully to the other which includes sexually, in which a homosexual union is incapable of compared to a heterosexual union, so for the law or anyone to Ignore the sexual nature of both unions when it comes to marriage is illogical.

When it comes to including homosexuality under the same word as marriage it’s an unjust and prejudicial treatment of marriage, trying to equate two things that are in no way equal in regards to marriage.

Homosexual marriage is discrimination towards heterosexual marriage, or vice versa, they cannot both be equated under marriage, they are fundamentally different.

The law should only include equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because in that case they are equal, however they should most certainly not include equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality (same sex marriage) as that would be unjust, because the two unions, given their sexual nature are fundamentally different, it would only force people to play along with a false equality.

So it’s not whether we want to legalise same sex marriage, it’s whether or not we want to pretend that same sex marriage exists, whether we want to pretend that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality, because if they did legalise same sex marriage, they would be taking part in a state wide illusion, that would require others to play along.

It seems to me that people aren’t separating the homosexual from the acts of homosexuality, they are trying to equate homosexuals and heterosexuals which is good, but foolishly they are equating homosexuality and heterosexuality through same sex marriage which is just factually incorrect.

I think gay-activists/same sex marriage supporters are very skilled at convincing the public by lumping the homosexual and the acts of homosexuality together, therefore anyone who speaks against homosexuality are accused of speaking against homosexuals.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[CJECulver]

Perhaps people here need only take a small step to modify their thinking to the way a Prince of the Church does and can stop telling me I’m wrong, since I clearly believe the same thing a Cardinal does

Oh, clearly. I especially liked the cherry-picked quote.

Instead of citing an individual cardinal – priests, bishops, cardinals, even popes, can err on doctrine individually, in case you’d forgotten – let’s look at what the Church has to say:

“Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.” (“Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”

In moral matters man cannot make value judgments according to his personal whim. Therefore there can be no true promotion of man’s dignity unless the essential order of his nature is respected.

…Christ instituted His Church as “the pillar and bulwark of truth.” With the Holy Spirit’s assistance, she ceaselessly preserves and transmits without error the truths of the moral order, and she authentically interprets not only the revealed positive law but “also . . . those principles of the moral order which have their origin in human nature itself”“Dignitatis Humanae”] and which concern man’s full development and sanctification.

…[T]he moral goodness of the acts proper to conjugal life, acts which are ordered according to true human dignity, ‘does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives. It must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.’ (citing Gaudium et Spes)

…This same principle, which the Church holds from Divine Revelation and from her authentic interpretation of the natural law, is also the basis of her traditional doctrine, which states that the use of the sexual function has its true meaning and moral rectitude only in true marriage. (Referencing Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae.)

–Persona Humana

The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

…There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”. (citing the Catechism, No. 2357)

Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. … Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil… It is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions…

(“Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”)

You would do well to read all the documents I’ve linked to above. They shed much light on the Church’s teaching regarding homosexuality and SSM. When you can demonstrate that your arguments are in line with these documents, then you can begin to claim you are in concert with Catholic doctrine.

Until then you are in dissent and are giving scandal.

 

[CopticChristian]

I read most of these posts and think…“Really?!! That’s all you got? Really?!!”

You expect the average person to really embrace your belief that if Tom and Ray who live down the street in that nice well maintained Cape Cod with the georgous front yard with the tulips and cherry trees in blossom…the nice manicruced lawn…the two boys they are raising are polite and respectful. The two boys come home badgered and belittled by YOUR children who tell them their fathers are evil and going to hell…or who brutalize the children of gay parents because of your religous beliefs…you expect the average person, whom you claim is "begiled by satan’ and have no moral compass, to embrace your claim that marriage equality will destroy marriage for straight people? That’s what youl’re claiming?

Linda and Beverly have two wonderful boys…who are at the top of their class and embody all the things most parents wish for their children are “evil” and “disordered”, while “your” children taunt them mercilessly are somehow “good: and “godfearing”? “Your” children beat up the children of gay parents…“your children” speak aweful names at the children of same sex parrents…the laws against 'bullys” are agianst YOUR CHILDREN.

It is claims like this that will lose the “culture wars”…well…not lose…but “have lost” the culture wars. Go ahead and make these claims…in fact spread the word with your every breath and action. Your claims make no sense to most of the “common people”…the common people hear the hate…they witness the violence…the see the discrimiantion your claims foster…no one is duped…people know they have a better moral compass than the one you offer.

Continue to tell people they really don’t love each other because same sex relationships cannot be "loving’ or “lasting”…then have your divorces and brokent homes…your children watch you and see your unhappiness in your “marriages”…they witness your tensions and fights…yet they experience the laughter and joy in same sex families.

The only ones believing your statements…are those who think like you…most people have a higher opinion of their own moral compass than you do…it’s not same sex marriage that will be the end of marriage…it is your arguements against same sex marriage that belittle marriage reducing it to sexual gratification…lust…devoid of “real love’…that’s a great arguement for the average man…but wait…the 'average man” on the street has no capability of making moral decisons without the guidence of a “church”…

Yeah…it’s not same sex marriage that will destroy marriage…same sex marriage will strenghten the bonds of marriage…and the common man is realizing THAT is TRUTH…and the church is wrong…completely wrong…so PLEASE…continue your war…PLEASE continue to make public your claims of “morality”…PLEASE CONTINUE. You are the best friends same sex marriage advocates have.

Friend,

None of this is real. Fantasy to inject passion does nothing for an argument.

The Quaker family down the street owns the steel mill and employ illegal aliens but they give a tremendous amount of money to the poor, have helped the economy and are really good moral people.

The Quaker family down the street, are truly involved with their children, respect others and have a live and let live attitude. They are polite, nice and kind and rarely have anything unkind to say about anybody.

The Quaker family down the street are really nice people, did you know though that the whole family is brewing Meth. Yup, you can smell it as you walk by. The kids are nice but you gotta wonder about what is going on in there.

Each story causes one to think one thing or another but means nothing as it is fantasy.

That’s all you have? Same sex marriage means the “death of marriage”? Please, continue to tell your neighbors they are void of any moral compas…they cannot make these decisions on their own…they need a “church” to tell them how to feel and how to think and what to believe…Please…continue…oh my God…please continue…PLEASE!!!

What will continue what will continue, even your perception of what continues

If the so called “war” is lost it’s not because of same sex marriage…it’s because YOU claim to have a moral certitude and everyone else are “dupes” of “satan”.

The Church and those that believe in the Church believe in revealed truths, moral certitude of revealed truths and moral absolutes and Satan. You can describe it as you wish.

PS…there is the distinct possiblility after this little post…the "powers that be’ will insure your isolation…of course I don’t know this for sure…just supposing.

There is a possibility that the powers that be will silence Friends as well.

 

[CopticChristian]

Oh, clearly. I especially liked the cherry-picked quote.

Instead of citing an individual cardinal – priests, bishops, cardinals, even popes, can err on doctrine individually, in case you’d forgotten – let’s look at what the Church has to say:

You would do well to read all the documents I’ve linked to above. They shed much light on the Church’s teaching regarding homosexuality and SSM. When you can demonstrate that your arguments are in line with these documents, then you can begin to claim you are in concert with Catholic doctrine.

Until then you are in dissent and are giving scandal.

I would imagine that this means that you agree with Domer, Pnewton, Fix, myself and the majority of Catholics on this thread.

 

[CopticChristian]

Oh, clearly. I especially liked the cherry-picked quote.

Instead of citing an individual cardinal – priests, bishops, cardinals, even popes, can err on doctrine individually, in case you’d forgotten – let’s look at what the Church has to say:

You would do well to read all the documents I’ve linked to above. They shed much light on the Church’s teaching regarding homosexuality and SSM. When you can demonstrate that your arguments are in line with these documents, then you can begin to claim you are in concert with Catholic doctrine.

Until then you are in dissent and are giving scandal.

So then it would stand to reason that you would agree with

Thus spoke Fix…in response to your assesment…on Same Sex Marriage and Homosexuality.

**
Abortion and Same Sex marriage are intrinsically evil. Both are sins that cry to heaven for justice. Both destroy souls. Both are examples of unjust laws. Both laws teach others to sin.

Children are central to the issue. To deny the obvious is to be oblivious to reality.

Anyone who obtains happiness from objective mortal sin is deceived. To claim any Catholic should support evil is beyond words.

There is no love in affirming sin. Your position is not Catholic.

What is true is that Catholics are bound to reject unjust laws. It does not have to be a matter of dogma to bind under pain of mortal sin. There is ample evidence in the CCC, encyclicals, Vatican directives, bishop’s statements, and basic moral theology that contradicts your words. In fact it is frank to state that this position insults intelligence.

We must all disagree with support of unjust laws. First, support for these unjust laws is morally wrong. To support the effort or the law is to support SSM. There is no logical way around that. It is like supporting pro abortion laws.

Secondly, religious arguments are fine. The Christian faith has and must influence the law. **

So, supporting Same Sex Marriage and Homosexuality is like supporting pro-abortion laws, evil is evil.

 

[DexUK]

And, BTW, I’m also interested in hearing your answer to the polygamy question.

I’ve answered that question all over the place until I’m blue in the face. I repeat myself enough already.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I read most of these posts and think…“Really?!! That’s all you got? Really?!!”

You expect the average person to really embrace your belief that if Tom and Ray who live down the street in that nice well maintained Cape Cod with the georgous front yard with the tulips and cherry trees in blossom…the nice manicruced lawn…the two boys they are raising are polite and respectful. The two boys come home badgered and belittled by YOUR children who tell them their fathers are evil and going to hell…or who brutalize the children of gay parents because of your religous beliefs…you expect the average person, whom you claim is "begiled by satan’ and have no moral compass, to embrace your claim that marriage equality will destroy marriage for straight people? That’s what youl’re claiming?

Linda and Beverly have two wonderful boys…who are at the top of their class and embody all the things most parents wish for their children are “evil” and “disordered”, while “your” children taunt them mercilessly are somehow “good: and “godfearing”? “Your” children beat up the children of gay parents…“your children” speak aweful names at the children of same sex parrents…the laws against 'bullys” are agianst YOUR CHILDREN.

It is claims like this that will lose the “culture wars”…well…not lose…but “have lost” the culture wars. Go ahead and make these claims…in fact spread the word with your every breath and action. Your claims make no sense to most of the “common people”…the common people hear the hate…they witness the violence…the see the discrimiantion your claims foster…no one is duped…people know they have a better moral compass than the one you offer.

Continue to tell people they really don’t love each other because same sex relationships cannot be "loving’ or “lasting”…then have your divorces and brokent homes…your children watch you and see your unhappiness in your “marriages”…they witness your tensions and fights…yet they experience the laughter and joy in same sex families.

That’s all you have? Same sex marriage means the “death of marriage”? Please, continue to tell your neighbors they are void of any moral compas…they cannot make these decisions on their own…they need a “church” to tell them how to feel and how to think and what to believe…Please…continue…oh my God…please continue…PLEASE!!!

If the so called “war” is lost it’s not because of same sex marriage…it’s because YOU claim to have a moral certitude and everyone else are “dupes” of “satan”.

The only ones believing your statements…are those who think like you…most people have a higher opinion of their own moral compass than you do…it’s not same sex marriage that will be the end of marriage…it is your arguements against same sex marriage that belittle marriage reducing it to sexual gratification…lust…devoid of “real love’…that’s a great arguement for the average man…but wait…the 'average man” on the street has no capability of making moral decisons without the guidence of a “church”…

Yeah…it’s not same sex marriage that will destroy marriage…same sex marriage will strenghten the bonds of marriage…and the common man is realizing THAT is TRUTH…and the church is wrong…completely wrong…so PLEASE…continue your war…PLEASE continue to make public your claims of “morality”…PLEASE CONTINUE. You are the best friends same sex marriage advocates have.

PS…there is the distinct possiblility after this little post…the "powers that be’ will insure your isolation…of course I don’t know this for sure…just supposing.

Huh?

Was this a rant or a response to a particular comment?

Unless you haven’t noticed, most of us have been pouncing on poor Dex. :slapfight:

 

[jonathan_hili]

I’ve answered that question all over the place until I’m blue in the face. I repeat myself enough already.

Sorry, Dex, I haven’t heard it, and am interested mainly to see if you’re consistent (well, obviously).

In fact, also because a friend of mine is in a polygamous relationship. She is living with bi-sexual guy and won’t marry him because she thinks it’s unfair that he can’t marry his boyfriend too.

 

[DexUK]

Sorry, Dex, I haven’t heard it, and am interested mainly to see if you’re consistent (well, obviously).

In fact, also because a friend of mine is in a polygamous relationship. She is living with bi-sexual guy and won’t marry him because she thinks it’s unfair that he can’t marry his boyfriend too.

Well, despite that fact that I am sorry that she’s sorry (as it were), as I’ve said before, it simply isn’t possible to legislate for such things even if people were to want them. The laws of the world give people benefits and responsibilities based on the the fact that individuals commit to and have responsibilities for other individuals. These include the rights to social security, inheritance, the right to not incriminate the other in court, the right to carry on a tenancy after the death of a partner, etc.

Imagine for a moment A, B and C all get polymarried (I’m not going to use the word ‘marriage’ here because people will jump on me if I do!)… Later on, B decides that A is no longer polymarriage material and wants a divorce. Does B also have to divorce C or can B remain married to C while C is polymarried to A but B not to A? What then are the rights to social security and mutual responsibility and liability then? Who has what rights in inheritance? If you could just about sort something out in the legislation for a tri-amourous polymarriage, how could you sort it out for octo-amourous? Dodeci-amorous? What about pension rights, in countries where government run social security contributions allow for widow’s/widower’s state pensions based, at least in part, on the contributions of their spouse? How would they be calculated? In the case of an unbalanced ‘marriage’ one way, ‘polymarriage’ the other, the whole thing would self combust (although not before lawyers made a packet out of it!).

If anyone ever tried to write a law that made ‘equal marriage-like’ legislation for variation of three or more people, their heads would explode and certainly the permutations and combinations involved would be utterly impossible to codify.

For that reason and that reason alone, I can say that it’ll never happen.

Obviously there are also moral reasons - clearly others in the world have different morals than us and are prepared to live in polyamorous relationships. I don’t think it’s good or healthy for many reasons, not least of which is the concept of an imbalance in affections between the people in the relationship (i.e. favourites), the consequent lack of balance in consent (including, but not limited to, the pressure brought to bear on one person by two others held in differing levels of regard). The same reasoning applies to why it can’t be moral - the whole situation is much too complicated to make it even approach acceptable behaviour. But, if people are willing to throw themselves into that situation, I can’t stop them and I wouldn’t be thanked anyway for trying - instead I’d just be putting their backs up. If people I knew asked my advice over it, I’d tell them what I’ve written above about the problems but it would have to end with “upon your own head be it”.

‘Polymarriage’ simply isn’t equatable on a practical level or, indeed, on an individual level with marriage or same-sex-marriage (since both of those are specific contracts between two people and two people only). Being different, it shouldn’t really be used as either part of the argument about SSM or naturally be assumed to be a logical extension of SSM or even remotely inevitable (for the practical reasons outlined).

Anyway, that’s a very long reply. I won’t be writing it again!

 

[jonathan_hili]

Well, despite that fact that I am sorry that she’s sorry (as it were), as I’ve said before, it simply isn’t possible to legislate for such things even if people were to want them.

I’m sure there would be some way around it, since it has been practised in the past and is still practised in some Muslim states.

My point, however, is not to discuss whether it is possible to legalise polygamy but rather, if it could be legalised, would you oppose it? I’m more interested in your consistency.

 

[josh987654321]

If anyone ever tried to write a law that made ‘equal marriage-like’ legislation for variation of three or more people, their heads would explode and certainly the permutations and combinations involved would be utterly impossible to codify.

True, I would have thought that polygamous marriage’s would be socially acceptable before same sex marriage was, but as you have said that wouldn’t happen as the logistics of polygamous marriage would be a nightmare.

With same sex marriage the logistics of it isn’t all that complicated and therefore could be implemented, but they need to ask themselves should it be implemented? should homosexuality and heterosexuality be equated?

Think about that question, should homosexuality and heterosexuality be equated? Im not talking about homosexuals and heterosexuals as of course homosexuals and heterosexuals should be equated.

This argument for same sex marriage is like women arguing to be recognised as men for equality sake.

I say no, as to equate homosexuality and heterosexuality through same sex marriage would be factually false, it’s a false equality, it would be unjust to enforce a state wide illusion, too many people aren’t separating the homosexual from the acts of homosexuality, because there definatly should be equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals, because we are equal, however there is no equality between the acts of homosexuality and heterosexuality which includes marriage and the sexual nature of both unions, the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman is very relevant in such an argument as same sex marriage.

So I agree that if they allow same sex marriage that they couldn’t allow polygamous marriage because of the logistics of it, however they would have no grounds other than “it’s too hard to work out” to disallow polygamous marriage’s.

For that reason and that reason alone, I can say that it’ll never happen.

True.

Obviously there are also moral reasons -

There are many, many moral reasons to be against same sex marriage.

However there is a simple logical reason, which is that homosexuality and heterosexuality are in no way equal to one another, the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman dictates this fact.

To include same sex into the diffinition of marriage would be to equate two unions that are in no way equal, the sexual anatomy of a man and a woman dictates that a homosexual union is in no way compatible like a heterosexual union is, so it’s an injustice to equate them both as marriage, it’s an illusion to think that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equal with regards to marriage, so it’s whether people want to legalise a false equality and force others to play along with it.

‘Polymarriage’ simply isn’t equatable on a practical level or, indeed, on an individual level with marriage or same-sex-marriage (since both of those are specific contracts between two people and two people only). Being different, it shouldn’t really be used as either part of the argument about SSM or naturally be assumed to be a logical extension of SSM or even remotely inevitable (for the practical reasons outlined).

Anyway, that’s a very long reply. I won’t be writing it again!

Yes, polygamous marriage isn’t equatable on a practical level, but it is equatable on an individual level, it’s only the logistics of trying to work out how to legalise a polygamous marriage that would stand in the way of it from ever happening.

However it is true that given the reason for legalising same sex marriage, it would be hypocritical and double standards to refuse polygamous marriage, the only thing to stop it is like you have said, “where do you begin if you want to legalise polygamous marriage?” lol.

Thank you for reading
Josh