Why marriage for homosexuals

[rebeccanew]

Why do homosexuals fight to be married when God stated that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why can’t a new union type be created-like a legal blendage especially for same sex couples? Could the same sex couples be that blind to the power of God? I would be pretty afraid of the future to look God squarely in the eye and say I am going to undo what you have created. History has some lessons on that, from the Pharaohs to wandering Jews. Give blendage all the legal rights of legal marriages, but not the sacramental blessings, which won’t happen anyway because same sex couples do not meet the requirements for a marriage in the eyes of God.

 

[Joe_5859]

Why do homosexuals fight to be married when God stated that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why can’t a new union type be created-like a legal blendage especially for same sex couples? Could the same sex couples be that blind to the power of God? I would be pretty afraid of the future to look God squarely in the eye and say I am going to undo what you have created. History has some lessons on that, from the Pharaohs to wandering Jews. Give blendage all the legal rights of legal marriages, but not the sacramental blessings, which won’t happen anyway because same sex couples do not meet the requirements for a marriage in the eyes of God.

I think most proponents of same-sex marriage would disagree that God created marriage that way. Spitting in the face of God isn’t something most people try to do.

The Church also opposes “civil unions” (see here). Making such unions legally equivalent to marriage will inevitably lead to the question: “Well, why not just call it marriage if it’s the same thing from a legal standpoint?” Since there’s no good answer to that question, then same sex marriage will have won the day. That’s why proponents of same sex marriage push so hard for these “civil unions”. They know it’s simply the soft sell for having their ultimate goal realized: social acceptance.

 

[followingtheway]

Why do homosexuals fight to be married when God stated that marriage is between a man and a woman?

Well, according to them, they’re born that way, but I don’t know And I personally listen to God, but they probably don’t listen to what God says because they don’t believe in our God.

Why can’t a new union type be created-like a legal blendage especially for same sex couples?

I don’t know? In their opinion, they feel like since we can married, they should get married.

Could the same sex couples be that blind to the power of God? I would be pretty afraid of the future to look God squarely in the eye and say I am going to undo what you have created. History has some lessons on that, from the Pharaohs to wandering Jews. Give blendage all the legal rights of legal marriages, but not the sacramental blessings, which won’t happen anyway because same sex couples do not meet the requirements for a marriage in the eyes of God.

True, true. And that’s what we know. That’s why we have to preach the word

Hope this didn’t sound pro-same-sex marriage. But I don’t hate them.

God bless,

David

 

[aicirt]

Why do homosexuals fight to be married when God stated that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why can’t a new union type be created-like a legal blendage especially for same sex couples? Could the same sex couples be that blind to the power of God? I would be pretty afraid of the future to look God squarely in the eye and say I am going to undo what you have created. History has some lessons on that, from the Pharaohs to wandering Jews. Give blendage all the legal rights of legal marriages, but not the sacramental blessings, which won’t happen anyway because same sex couples do not meet the requirements for a marriage in the eyes of God.

You assume that all homosexuals believe in God. They don’t. Then you have the group that believes they’re good people and God would not have created them like this and then forbid them to act out on their feelings. Then there’s the group who wish to stay in the back and not fight for homosexual marriage. Then there’s the political left which thinks they need their votes.

This week,EWTN broadcast a meeting at Acquinas University. The topic was homosexual marriage and its consequences. A speaker requested that we no longer term it a discussion of homosexual marriage but use the term the redefinition of marriage. She brought out some excellent points. One was that there is a movement on to question the normalcy of being hetrosexual. And another where the terms Mother and Father are to be removed on documents e.g. passports and replaced by the words Parent A and Parent B.

According to her, the rights of children are being ignored and biology. Laws are to be enacted to accomodate the desires of all people because, apparently, nothing is wrong, immoral or incorrect. We’re in for a really bumpy ride.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Why do homosexuals fight to be married when God stated that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why can’t a new union type be created-like a legal blendage especially for same sex couples? Could the same sex couples be that blind to the power of God? I would be pretty afraid of the future to look God squarely in the eye and say I am going to undo what you have created. History has some lessons on that, from the Pharaohs to wandering Jews. Give blendage all the legal rights of legal marriages, but not the sacramental blessings, which won’t happen anyway because same sex couples do not meet the requirements for a marriage in the eyes of God.

It is really kooky that this is such a big topic around here. We can see how the Church is struggling with social progress. It will either come around, or it will die a slow death. You can’t fight progress. It is a platitude that those who forget history are destined to relive it, the Church has decided to look backwards instead of forwards, and has elected a very conservative leader. Once he fails, then the choice will be obvious in these issues.

Cafeteria Catholics, as they are called around here, harp on the gay issue, but then refuse for force a rape victim to marry her rapist, and refuse to stone adulterers to death, and refuse to follow all the other Mosaic laws, while selectively troubling their little minds over sexuality. It is not a big deal. Just as it is not a big deal whether you mix different fibers in your clothing, or whether a man shaves his face.

The Church has a history of slowly changing its moral teachings in response to social progress. The current doctrine is to throw the 2,000 years of tradition into the dust bin in order to satisfy the prejudices and bigotry of a minority of Catholics (in my opinion) over matters of sexual identity. I think that this will be viewed in retrospect as foolishness, and as one of the many dark episodes in the Church’s history. Granted, that it is not as bad as putting Jews in ghettos, requiring them to wear badges, and prohibiting them from most professions. Not as bad as supporting the Nazi’s. Probably about the same as protecting child molesters. Not as bad as burning heretics alive.

Try to wake up, if you can.

 

[Joe_5859]

It is really kooky that this is such a big topic around here. We can see how the Church is struggling with social progress. It will either come around, or it will die a slow death. You can’t fight progress. It is a platitude that those who forget history are destined to relive it, the Church has decided to look backwards instead of forwards, and has elected a very conservative leader. Once he fails, then the choice will be obvious in these issues.

Cafeteria Catholics, as they are called around here, harp on the gay issue, but then refuse for force a rape victim to marry her rapist, and refuse to stone adulterers to death, and refuse to follow all the other Mosaic laws, while selectively troubling their little minds over sexuality. It is not a big deal. Just as it is not a big deal whether you mix different fibers in your clothing, or whether a man shaves his face.

The Church has a history of slowly changing its moral teachings in response to social progress. The current doctrine is to throw the 2,000 years of tradition into the dust bin in order to satisfy the prejudices and bigotry of a minority of Catholics (in my opinion) over matters of sexual identity. I think that this will be viewed in retrospect as foolishness, and as one of the many dark episodes in the Church’s history. Granted, that it is not as bad as putting Jews in ghettos, requiring them to wear badges, and prohibiting them from most professions. Not as bad as supporting the Nazi’s. Probably about the same as protecting child molesters. Not as bad as burning heretics alive.

Try to wake up, if you can.

This seems to be quite a bit condascending towards the Church. “You can’t fight progress”? Sorry, the Catholic Church doesn’t base it’s moral teachings on generic cliches.

 

[edwest2]

It is really kooky that this is such a big topic around here. We can see how the Church is struggling with social progress. It will either come around, or it will die a slow death. You can’t fight progress. It is a platitude that those who forget history are destined to relive it, the Church has decided to look backwards instead of forwards, and has elected a very conservative leader. Once he fails, then the choice will be obvious in these issues.

Cafeteria Catholics, as they are called around here, harp on the gay issue, but then refuse for force a rape victim to marry her rapist, and refuse to stone adulterers to death, and refuse to follow all the other Mosaic laws, while selectively troubling their little minds over sexuality. It is not a big deal. Just as it is not a big deal whether you mix different fibers in your clothing, or whether a man shaves his face.

The Church has a history of slowly changing its moral teachings in response to social progress. The current doctrine is to throw the 2,000 years of tradition into the dust bin in order to satisfy the prejudices and bigotry of a minority of Catholics (in my opinion) over matters of sexual identity. I think that this will be viewed in retrospect as foolishness, and as one of the many dark episodes in the Church’s history. Granted, that it is not as bad as putting Jews in ghettos, requiring them to wear badges, and prohibiting them from most professions. Not as bad as supporting the Nazi’s. Probably about the same as protecting child molesters. Not as bad as burning heretics alive.

Try to wake up, if you can.

Progress? Progress should be toward truth: biological truth at least.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Here is a Church document I suggest everyone should read:

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

Peace,
Ed

 

[GloriousOrder]

The majority of activist homosexuals are agnostic, atheist, or contemptuous of God. Infected by the modern humanist movement, they gleefully spit in the Lord’s Face. Most of them don’t even care whether He exists at all. It’s a matter of doing what you want and what you feel, without reference to society, tradition, or absolute morality. They say there isn’t an absolute, but that we make our own truth and forge ahead for pleasure and happiness.

 

[Joan1969]

It is really kooky that this is such a big topic around here. We can see how the Church is struggling with social progress. It will either come around, or it will die a slow death. You can’t fight progress. It is a platitude that those who forget history are destined to relive it, the Church has decided to look backwards instead of forwards, and has elected a very conservative leader. Once he fails, then the choice will be obvious in these issues.

Cafeteria Catholics, as they are called around here, harp on the gay issue, but then refuse for force a rape victim to marry her rapist, and refuse to stone adulterers to death, and refuse to follow all the other Mosaic laws, while selectively troubling their little minds over sexuality. It is not a big deal. Just as it is not a big deal whether you mix different fibers in your clothing, or whether a man shaves his face.

The Church has a history of slowly changing its moral teachings in response to social progress. The current doctrine is to throw the 2,000 years of tradition into the dust bin in order to satisfy the prejudices and bigotry of a minority of Catholics (in my opinion) over matters of sexual identity. I think that this will be viewed in retrospect as foolishness, and as one of the many dark episodes in the Church’s history. Granted, that it is not as bad as putting Jews in ghettos, requiring them to wear badges, and prohibiting them from most professions. Not as bad as supporting the Nazi’s. Probably about the same as protecting child molesters. Not as bad as burning heretics alive.

Try to wake up, if you can.

Hi Rock,

You have concentrated plenty of weak and unfounded accusations in to a relatively small post. Are you just here to bash the Church?

You are certainly very fast to swallow anything said against the Church with no criticism or honest historical understanding, as well as some very shallow “progessivist” platitudes. I would not point the finger at others as mindless followers until you look at your own attitudes.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[Rock_Happy]

This seems to be quite a bit condascending towards the Church. “You can’t fight progress”? Sorry, the Catholic Church doesn’t base it’s moral teachings on generic cliches.

Yes, it does. Catholics do not require rape victims to marry their rapists. It does not burn heretics anymore. It spent more than 700 years persecuting Jews, which it does not do anymore. It has changed it policies on annulments. It has changed its policies on money lending. It has changed its policies on slavery… and so on. I think it is condescending of you to suggest that the teachings of the Church are static in time. I would suggest that you might be very unhappy with the morality of 14th century Europe which was a very different moral climate than today, all due to the Church.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Hi Rock,

You have concentrated plenty of weak and unfounded accusations in to a relatively small post. Are you just here to bash the Church?

You are certainly very fast to swallow anything said against the Church with no criticism or honest historical understanding, as well as some very shallow “progessivist” platitudes. I would not point the finger at others as mindless followers until you look at your own attitudes.

God Bless,
Joan

No, not here to bash the Church. I disagree with the people here who have suddenly adopted the view that the Church is unchanging in its moral position, which it has never been.

On the whole gay issue, I think the obsession with it here is rather appalling, and that it is distorting the teachings of the Church today as they try to grapple with issues of human sexuality in light of new knowledge. The most recent moral test for the Church was the child molestation stuff, unfortunately. But we must base our opinions on the facts available. Based on its recent behavior, the Church is at a nadir in it modern history, and even worse, there appears to be little recognition of this. Over time, it will change. Call that bashing, if you like. I consider it to be truthfulness, and constructive criticism. Expressing that opinion around here is a bit like telling the Emperor that he is naked.

 

[EasterJoy]

No, not here to bash the Church. I disagree with the people here who have suddenly adopted the view that the Church is unchanging in its moral position, which it has never been.

On the whole gay issue, I think the obsession with it here is rather appalling, and that it is distorting the teachings of the Church today as they try to grapple with issues of human sexuality in light of new knowledge. The most recent moral test for the Church was the child molestation stuff, unfortunately. But we must base our opinions on the facts available. Based on its recent behavior, the Church is at a nadir in it modern history, and even worse, there appears to be little recognition of this. Over time, it will change. Call that bashing, if you like. I consider it to be truthfulness, and constructive criticism. Expressing that opinion around here is a bit like telling the Emperor that he is naked.

How about the Church be asked to follow NAMBLA, so the “child molestation stuff” can be solved by pedophiles just being able to practice openly? If pedophiles are born that way, or can’t help that they have this attraction to adolescents or pre-pubescents, then why persecute them? Why drive them underground where they have to commit crimes in order to satisfy basic human needs?

I can tell you what Emperor is naked around here, and it is the common culture that all but says that rape is the only sexual sin two adults can commit, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is backwards and two inches from running all the homosexuals into death camps. It is the common culture that is obsessed with sex, not the Church, and if you don’t think that historians looking at our entertainment and advertising won’t say the same, you are the one who has your head in the sand.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t doubt that you are going to object “homosexuality is not pedophilia.” Well, of course it isn’t. But neither is opposition to gay marriage the same as supporting slavery, requiring couples who have had sex to marry each other, or being in collaboration with the Nazis…so do not imply they are.

 

[babylonsfalling]

Why do homosexuals fight to be married when God stated that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why can’t a new union type be created-like a legal blendage especially for same sex couples? Could the same sex couples be that blind to the power of God? I would be pretty afraid of the future to look God squarely in the eye and say I am going to undo what you have created. History has some lessons on that, from the Pharaohs to wandering Jews. Give blendage all the legal rights of legal marriages, but not the sacramental blessings, which won’t happen anyway because same sex couples do not meet the requirements for a marriage in the eyes of God.

It’s part of trying to normalize their sin, so they can feel better about what they know in their gut is a perverted lifestyle.

 

[secondeve]

No, not here to bash the Church. I disagree with the people here who have suddenly adopted the view that the Church is unchanging in its moral position, which it has never been.

On the whole gay issue, I think the obsession with it here is rather appalling, and that it is distorting the teachings of the Church today as they try to grapple with issues of human sexuality in light of new knowledge. The most recent moral test for the Church was the child molestation stuff, unfortunately. But we must base our opinions on the facts available. Based on its recent behavior, the Church is at a nadir in it modern history, and even worse, there appears to be little recognition of this. Over time, it will change. Call that bashing, if you like. I consider it to be truthfulness, and constructive criticism. Expressing that opinion around here is a bit like telling the Emperor that he is naked.

You are wasting your time if you are hoping for a rational response on THIS forum. I’ve been trying for days. Most of the active members are irrational, ignorant, intolerant and quite impervious to reason. “Double-think” is alive and well, and living on Catholic Answers (for example, “HERE”:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=574636&page=8)

 

[Joe_5859]

Yes, it does. Catholics do not require rape victims to marry their rapists. It does not burn heretics anymore. It spent more than 700 years persecuting Jews, which it does not do anymore. It has changed it policies on annulments. It has changed its policies on money lending. It has changed its policies on slavery… and so on. I think it is condescending of you to suggest that the teachings of the Church are static in time. I would suggest that you might be very unhappy with the morality of 14th century Europe which was a very different moral climate than today, all due to the Church.

I can only recommend that you investigate Church history for yourself in these areas.

 

[Joe_5859]

You are wasting your time if you are hoping for a rational response on THIS forum. I’ve been trying for days. Most of the active members are irrational, ignorant, intolerant and quite impervious to reason. “Double-think” is alive and well, and living on Catholic Answers (for example, “HERE”:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=574636&page=8)

We still love you, though. :grouphug:

 

[Joan1969]

No, not here to bash the Church. I disagree with the people here who have suddenly adopted the view that the Church is unchanging in its moral position, which it has never been.

On the whole gay issue, I think the obsession with it here is rather appalling, and that it is distorting the teachings of the Church today as they try to grapple with issues of human sexuality in light of new knowledge. The most recent moral test for the Church was the child molestation stuff, unfortunately. But we must base our opinions on the facts available. Based on its recent behavior, the Church is at a nadir in it modern history, and even worse, there appears to be little recognition of this. Over time, it will change. Call that bashing, if you like. I consider it to be truthfulness, and constructive criticism. Expressing that opinion around here is a bit like telling the Emperor that he is naked.

Hi Rock,

Based on this post from both you and Second Eve, it’s hard to know what to respond since both your minds seem quite made up and there may be little to say that will be useful in bringing us closer to any sort of agreement. I’ve had too much experience in internet debates to have much hope that the conversation will go anywhere with such a start as this. Certainly expressions of personal contempt don’t do much to get anything productive going.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[secondeve]

We still love you, though. :grouphug:

Why does that fill me with creepy chills…?