Why Must We Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage?

[fix]

heres the source:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_theology_of_John_Paul_I

and your point is?

My point is your source is fiction. It is false.

that was from jp2’s book , i dont think he was speaking infallibly.

It does not have to be infallible to be true.

and you know, i find it funny how so many catholics (both laycatholics and clergy) are railing against homosexual marriage as “evil”. yet a single pope has yet to condemn the sale of tobacco.

Tobacco is not evil. It may be misued, but it is not evil in itself. Homosexual acts are always evil.

which does far greater damage to society and the individual than two people living together and having theire names on a state issued marriage certificate. its downright absurd!

What is absurd is reducing marriage to a mere piece of paper.

this is why i find it difficult to take the church seriously on certain questions. i mean give me a break, if youre not going to condemn the greater evils in society, then dont try to just single out the issue of homosexuality since its inconsistent.

The only inconsistent argument is the one you present here.

@your following comment,
then should we also criminalise adultery? or perhaps masterbation? if its gravely immoral for the state to grant CIVIL marriage to gay people, then the church must also admit that its gravely immoral for the state not to criminalise adultery, or masterbation, or blasphemey, etc.

You are mixing things up here. First until very recently many of the things listed were illegal. Secondly, the Church is not asking to criminalize every single vice. She is asking for the state to uphold marriage as it is and always will be.

 

[vsedriver]

I would be fine with christianity if it didn’t try to limit people’s rights. If you feel persecuted it might be because your religion is trying to push some of your beliefs on others.

 

[Elizabeth502]

First of all, why do you use this phrase “homosexual agenda”? What agenda?

Answering for NeedImprovement…

Here’s a reply from another thread by the poster InSearchofGrace:

> The marketing strategy explained in a book called After the Ball, by gay rights activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:

> "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."

> "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."

> "Give homosexual protectors a just cause."

> "Make gays look good."

> "Make the victimizers look bad."

> "Get funds from corporate America."

And so far, they have succeeded remarkably.

 

[NeedImprovement]

• Can’t recall ever being quoted so much since joining CAF. I guess I must’ve hit on something that some people here would prefer remained hidden ; or preferred wouldn’t become common knowledge.

I wonder if it’s because some are just too afraid of what Dr. Michael Brown unmasks in his exposés.

Or, maybe it was that post . . . . . . . . . (How did it go again . . . ?) :

. . . Seriously guys , look at it . Do you see any parents’ rights in there ? – No ! The sacred right of a parent, their authority to ensure the education and formation of their own child is stripped and thrown into the garbage ! And then it is replaced with . . what – another parent . . ? – No , it’s replaced with a study !

What’s the underlying message here? It is that parents don’t even have the right to educate their own child. That right is supposed to be sacred. But you note how the response was framed : It further implies that only a study – not a parent may decide whether something is harmful to children – particularly their own children.

There we have the sheer lunacy of the driving mentality behind the normalization of homosexuality on display. :doh2:

That, my dear brothers and sisters is one more solid reason “Why We Must Fight Against Same Sex -]marriage/-]."

The use of “studies” to supplant other peoples’ legitimate rights is not some new incursion tactic in the homosexual activist/gay militant faction’s arsenal. They’ve been getting away with it for a while . Cardinal George Pell caught them red handed citing the " . . . most comprehensive study ever undertaken in Australia in this area."

(green bolds mine)

**CANBERRA, Australia, 23 NOV. 2009 **(ZENIT)

Here is the text of a keynote address given Friday by Cardinal George Pell, archbishop of Sydney. He was speaking at an Australian Christian Lobby conference. He spoke on “Religious Freedom and Public Policy.”

---

Inquiries about religious freedom and a mishap.

“As many of you are aware, the Human Rights Commission has been conducting an inquiry into freedom of religion in Australia for over a year. The only question about its outcome is how bad it will be . . .

In case there was any doubt about the matter, in August Mr Calma and Conrad Gershevitch delivered a conference paper on the inquiry which opened with these words:

‘The compatibility of religious freedom with human rights is the subject of the most comprehensive study ever undertaken in Australia in this area. …’ [2] (emphasis added).

Let us spell this out: the clear meaning of these words is that religious freedom is not a human right and may not be compatible with human rights. This is an astonishing claim from a senior officer of the body responsible for the protection and advancement of human rights in Australia. Mr Calma announced the inquiry in a similar vein, comparing religion and human rights to oil and water — substances that do not mix.[3]

. . . All of which simply underscores the need for a different sort of inquiry; not into whether religious freedom is compatible with human rights, but into whether this enquiry of the Human Rights Commission is compatible with human rights."

ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/zpellhumrights.HTM

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Answering for NeedImprovement…

Here’s a reply from another thread by the poster InSearchofGrace:

The marketing strategy explained in a book called After the Ball, by gay rights activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:

"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."

"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."

"Give homosexual protectors a just cause."

"Make gays look good."

"Make the victimizers look bad."

"Get funds from corporate America."

And so far, they have succeeded remarkably.

Indeed, Elizabeth. In addition, homosexuals and their apologists like hyperbole and dramatic effects.

Further, DaddyGirl needs to

-think about the point of gay parades, proliferation of gay themes in TV programs and shows, storming and vandalism of Catholic churches, glitter-bombing of conservative politicians, etc.

-read up on 

* National Stonewall Democrats
* GLSEN and appointment of openly homosexual Kevin Jennings as 'safe schools' czar, who inserted indoctrination of children with gay curriculum in grade schools under the guise of an anti-bullying program but not including non-gay students who are bullied as well for other reasons.
* Mission statements of organizations like the Bohnert Foundation and Arcus Foundation
* the truth about the Matthew Shepard story (not just from the point of view of Ellen Degeneres)



-consider a history of

* revisionism of Scriptural passages by gay protagonists (the latest by Matthew Vines)
* the lexicon war that pro-gays have taken to redefine 'marriage' and 'hate speech' for example and false claims to 'civil rights' for legal advantage


These are just a few points to drive home that the homosexual agenda is real.

The bottom line is that in obtaining the legal right to 'marry,' and relative to the OP, homosexuals are of the mistaken belief that they can get all of society to think that homosexual acts are normal and enshrining such acts in law cause no harm to society.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Of interest, I followed this from a wiki mention on the University of Michigan Stonewall Democrats chapter:

“In 2003, the University of Michigan chapter of the Stonewall Democrats became the first of its kind on a college campus. It has worked towards open housing, lifting the ban on gay men who wish to donate blood, and statewide anti-bullying campaigns.”

LGBT ISSUES | StonewallDems
Chairs: Charlotte Keeler and Blake Mackie
Tuesdays at 7 PM | Room A, Michigan League

UMCD’s committee for LGBT rights, StonewallDems, is also U of M’s chapter of Stonewall Democrats. This national organization is affiliated with the Democratic Party and promotes LGBT rights through political action. U of M’s chapter was the first collegiate chapter, it was founded in 2003. StonewallDems’ mission is to raise awareness and to create social change within our campus and the community. **In particular, we are a part of the open housing initiative on campus, we working to fight against the blood donation restrictions for gay men, **and we are a part of a statewide anti-bullying campaign.

These are actual words of homosexual activists. Res ipsa loquitur!

I would imagine in the homosexual activist’s world, this is a benefit, a gift, they want society to have!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

you are right. i agree with you completely. marriage is a civil matter. for us, its spiritual as well, but not everyone follows our ways. its wrong to try to force our ways unto others.

Is it wrong for others to force us to follow their ways? That’s what the debate is about… changing the common definition of marriage so that it is something less than as traditionally defined.

An analogy… redefining the term “Mother” to also include a male parent. Is it wrong to say that males cannot be mothers? Are we depriving males of the “right” to be a mother by not redefining the term to be more “inclusive?”

That’s what this is about in one real sense. It’s not about denying something to a gay couple. It’s about whether we should water down the meaning of a long-understood union to keep up the appearance of equality. Doing so sacrifices a truth. Looking back to the analogy (and I concede all analogies are flawed to some extent), redefining “mother” to include males may make males feel more included in the parent-sibling relationship, but at what cost to the unique relationship of mother and child? Is it really discriminatory to tell a man that he can be a wonderful father, but he cannot be a mother?

In the same way, it is not discrimination to say to a gay couple that the relationship they have, as wonderful as they may think it is, simply is not a marriage UNLESS marriage is REDEFINED in a way that ignores key fundamental truths about what marriage is.

Peace,
Robert

 

[someperson555]

Is it wrong for others to force us to follow their ways? That’s what the debate is about… changing the common definition of marriage so that it is something less than as traditionally defined.

An analogy… redefining the term “Mother” to also include a male parent. Is it wrong to say that males cannot be mothers? Are we depriving males of the “right” to be a mother by not redefining the term to be more “inclusive?”

That’s what this is about in one real sense. It’s not about denying something to a gay couple. It’s about whether we should water down the meaning of a long-understood union to keep up the appearance of equality. Doing so sacrifices a truth. Looking back to the analogy (and I concede all analogies are flawed to some extent), redefining “mother” to include males may make males feel more included in the parent-sibling relationship, but at what cost to the unique relationship of mother and child? Is it really discriminatory to tell a man that he can be a wonderful father, but he cannot be a mother?

In the same way, it is not discrimination to say to a gay couple that the relationship they have, as wonderful as they may think it is, simply is not a marriage UNLESS marriage is REDEFINED in a way that ignores key fundamental truths about what marriage is.

Peace,
Robert

but you must realise that marriage is a convention, it is not an eternal truth nor is it part of the natural law. conventions change throughout history to fit the particular time and circumstances. just like politics, economics, etc. no one is proposing to eliminate or redefine the term “mother” or “father”.
there is a separation of church and state, before we proceed in the debate, we must ask: “what is the role of state”? that is to safegaurd the people, maintain order, and provide basic services. it is NOT to enforce any religion or spirituality, and it should not be.

as much as i loathe ann ryand, i still say that the state should have an objectivist approach to morality. which means that individuals should be able to do whatever they want so long as they are not harming others. (i am not an objectivist , but i find that in the question of highly personal matters an objectivist approach is best)
for example, here is an excellent proposition i heard from someone on youtube. the state should should not recognize marriage as an institution, rather, people wishing to marry should contract eachother. so marriage would be a legally binding contract kind of like between employer and employee. the couple could come up with their own penalties for breaking the contract, etc. or we could just make it so that a person would only have a legal obligation to the children he fathers or adopts.
anyway you get my point, the fact is that both of these solutions would be excellent because they are unbiased and common sense. unfortunately niether sides on this issue are open to any compromise.

 

[someperson555]

My point is your source is fiction. It is false.

at first i wasnt even going to waste my time replying to you .

what the heck do you mean 'fiction"? are you colorblind or something? can you not see the color blue? that quote is in the link i provided, john paul one DID say that and he is RIGHT.

It does not have to be infallible to be true.

except its not true

Tobacco is not evil. It may be misued, but it is not evil in itself. Homosexual acts are always evil.

YES IT IS, it is a sin of lust and it causes a whole host of health problems, so the people who selling tobbacco and alcohol are basically guilty of negligent murder. they profit from the pain and suffering of their customers yet i dont see catholics calling for the outlawing of these harmful substances. the world would be a far better place without tobacco and alcohol, but it would NOT be a far better place without gay marriage.

What is absurd is reducing marriage to a mere piece of paper.

it is already a piece of paper in the eyes of the civil court. for us catholics marriage is ofcourse a spiritual matter, but that doesnt mean we should force the state to accept that view! because if you want a theocracy so bad then go live in the phillipines, did you know in the phillipines you can get up to 14 years for adultery? would you agree if the USA would bring such a law? or maybe yoiu’d be happier in saudi arabia where people are beheaded for blasphemy. theocracies do not work. even Jesus Christ himself did not push for a theocracy. “my kingdom is not if this world” -Jesus Christ

You are mixing things up here. First until very recently many of the things listed were illegal. Secondly, the Church is not asking to criminalize every single vice. She is asking for the state to uphold marriage as it is and always will be.

as i said before, then we would have to criminalise adultery and blasphemey as well. and hey! there are countries where that IS illegal, so go live there if you yearn for a theocracy so badly. this is my point you are inconsistent, you cant pick and choose which sins to criminalise and legalise, if you want the state to view marriage by catholic standards then for the sake of consistency it should view other things by catholic standards as well. should we also ban work on sundays?

 

[WeightedHeart]

The bottom line is that in obtaining the legal right to ‘marry,’ and relative to the OP, homosexuals are of the mistaken belief that they can get all of society to think that homosexual acts are normal and enshrining such acts in law cause no harm to society.

I’m pretty sure there’s a passage in the Good Book that explicitly states God doesn’t appreciate folk doing his job for him. But hey … I could be wrong.

If society can be harmed by two men holding hands at the movies, I don’t doubt its significance. To blame homosexuality for destroying the moral fabric of our communities, however, might be a little presumptuous. After all, historically speaking, it wasn’t the LBGT community that laid a death sentence on the nuclear family, it was women’s lib. Homosexuality is well-documented before mid-last century; it wasn’t until mothers left the household and went to work that the nuclear family began to disappear.

 

[someperson555]

I’m pretty sure there’s a passage in the Good Book that explicitly states God doesn’t appreciate folk doing his job for him. But hey … I could be wrong.

If society can be harmed by two men holding hands at the movies, I don’t doubt its significance. To blame homosexuality for destroying the moral fabric of our communities, however, might be a little presumptuous. After all, historically speaking, it wasn’t the LBGT community that laid a death sentence on the nuclear family, it was women’s lib. Homosexuality is well-documented before mid-last century; it wasn’t until mothers left the household and went to work that the nuclear family began to disappear.

exactly,
unfortunately not many conservative catholics like to acknowledge this fact.
this is why i get mad when arguing with the conservative catholics. i cant help but notice these inconsistencies in their logic. i as a progressive catholic hold views that not many conservative catholics agree with, and thats fine (everyones entitled to their opinion after all).
but the funny thing with these so-called “traditionalist” catholics is that while they oppose homosexuality under the pretense of “being traditional” they support other things which the church has severely opposed in the past.
for example,
women’s rights, democracy, free speech, etc. a hundred years ago all these ideologies were considered “anti-catholic” and “heretical” and etc. a hundred years ago a catholic could not support women’s rights, a catholic could not support democracy, so if all these modern conservative catholics were alive a hundred years ago, they would be in the exact same position as me and other progressive catholics are today! they would be mocked, labeled heretics, etc. so all im saying is that conservative catholics shouldnt pretend that they are so traditional and immediately mock/condescend a more progressive thinking catholic.
and i wish to add to me response to RobertinSD, that i do not support gay marriage in the church, i merely support their right to marry in the civil courts.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
**If society can be harmed by two men holding hands at the movies, **I don’t doubt its significance. To blame homosexuality for destroying the moral fabric of our communities, however, might be a little presumptuous. …

Except of course we are talking about gay ‘marriage,’ not just two men supposedly in love with each other holding hands at the movies …

I will not quibble with you that the gay ‘marriage’ movement is more a symptom than a cause of social decay. The devaluation of marriage and family ties, especially through divorce, contraception and abortion, created the environment for the demand for gay 'marriage.’ It became easy to enter into and get out of marriages and to maintain intentionally childless unions. And there is fornication, adultery, the porn epidemic, voluntary single-parenthood, voluntary sterilization, etc. If we know what’s good for us, we should all hold all these threats to marriage in contempt. They are all corrosive acids eating away at the foundations of civilization.

HOWEVER,

Gay ‘marriage’ needs to be opposed because it is not an insignificant addition to the self-centered conception of sexual gratification, as with heterosexual fornication and the social ills brought about by pornography. Homosexual acts normalized by ‘marriage’ would threaten the future of human civilization, something that should concern secularists as much as people of faith.

In case you are not paying attention, there is a demographic crisis playing out in Western Europe with the collapsed birth rates in countries there. The U.S. is not far behind with its replacement rate. Read Warning Bell for Developed Countries: Declining Birth Rates

Further, there are explanations better expressed in this article by Bonchamps, What Radical Gays Really Want - And Will Never Ever Have

Portion of it below, bolding mine.

Even those who would point to the prospect of gay couples adopting children can’t argue with the fact that such unions cannot produce new life. They can do absolutely nothing to restore the birth rate to replacement levels. They even harm such prospects in that the children they adopt are statistically more likely to develop homosexual orientations. To legalize and celebrate the homosexual lifestyle in the midst of a demographic crisis such as the one faced by the developed countries is an act of sociocide.

Who will pay the taxes for the massive social welfare programs that most of these secular advocates also support? Who will support these childless people in their old age? Europe’s answer was to allow millions of people from poor, undemocratic, and culturally-backward countries to flood into their own to do the work, purchase the goods and pay the taxes that the children they never had couldn’t perform, buy or pay. So in addition to its demographic crisis, Europe faces a horrific culture war of its own, between a sleepy secularism and militant Islam. The United States has a similar problem with its southern border, with a growing and still unappreciated Mexican separatist/nationalist movement threatening to Balkanize the Southwest. And in both cases, waves of immigrants end up putting more of a strain on an already strained system instead of reinforcing it. The legitimization of homosexual relationships is far from the most serious cause of such problems, but it is still one of the more disturbing manifestations of a culture that has lost its will to survive.

**The concept of “equality” has no foundation in nature. Dominance and domination are facts of life. This has also been the case throughout most of human history. Christianity introduced humanity to exactly the greatest amount of egalitarianism it could possibly handle without self-imploding. But the same religion that is responsible for legitimizing any sort of notion of egalitarianism to begin with also put some rather severe limits on it. Equal dignity in the eyes of God was never meant to translate into the abolition of distinct social roles or their division into a hierarchy in which some command and others obey, as Scripture clearly attests. There may not be any slave or free, man or woman, Greek or Jew in Christ – but in the fallen world, servants are to obey their masters, wives their husbands, and society is to guided by the Church.
**
To sum it up: if you take God out of the picture, nature destroys all egalitarian notions and aspirations. At this point your faith must be placed entirely in the proposition that the advance of technology will overrule nature before nature overrules your egalitarian aspirations. Return God to the picture, and there is absolutely no justification for “gay marriage” whatsoever, as homosexuality is condemned in Scripture and is a violation of the natural law recognized by the Church.

Finally, I express to those I discuss “gay marriage” with that this is not about some kind of radical intolerance. I have libertarian leanings politically; with St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, I believe certain vices can and should be tolerated socially to a certain extent, for the sake of the greater good. ** I really don’t care what people do behind closed doors or in a brothel on the edge of town, far away from neighborhoods where children go to school and families go to church. But I will not label what is morally evil good; I will not grant it “equal rights” with what is good; and I will maintain that in this case, as in a few others, the good of society overrides the desires of the individual.
**

 

[LeafByNiggle]

but you must realise that marriage is a convention, it is not an eternal truth nor is it part of the natural law. conventions change throughout history to fit the particular time and circumstances.

I disagree. Civil marriage is a formal civil recognition of a natural law truth - that a man and a woman are meant to come together for the purpose of raising children. Various aspects of that civil recognition may be conventional, such as the age to marry, or whether the dowery is one pig or two, and how much of a tax break you get. But the underlying facts of marriage are not mere convention.

…proposition i heard from someone on youtube. the state should should not recognize marriage as an institution, rather, people wishing to marry should contract eachother. so marriage would be a legally binding contract kind of like between employer and employee. the couple could come up with their own penalties for breaking the contract, etc. or we could just make it so that a person would only have a legal obligation to the children he fathers or adopts.
anyway you get my point, the fact is that both of these solutions would be excellent because they are unbiased and common sense. unfortunately niether sides on this issue are open to any compromise.

There is an important difference between civil marriage and a private legal contract between two people. In the latter case the contract involves only the two people. The only involvement by society would be to help edjudicate the contract dispute in the civil courts if that became necessary. But the contract does not place any obligation on society at large. But in the case of marriage it is more than a contract between two people. It is also a contract with society at large. In return for abiding by the terms of marriage society offers its own support in various ways. There are tax benefits, employee-sponsored health insurance benefits, and numerous other societal advantages of being married. Society would not grant these benefits if it did not in some sense approve of and want to encourage the couple in being married. So if you want to sell the idea of civil marriage for gays you can’t just say “it is our own business so just let us do it as long as we don’t hurt others”. No, you would have to do more than that. You would have to put forth a convincing argument that gay marriage offers society at large the benefits that are comparable to the benefits offered by a man and woman couple being married.

 

[surritter]

exactly,
unfortunately not many conservative catholics like to acknowledge this fact.
this is why i get mad when arguing with the conservative catholics. i cant help but notice these inconsistencies in their logic. i as a progressive catholic hold views that not many conservative catholics agree with, and thats fine (everyones entitled to their opinion after all).
but the funny thing with these so-called “traditionalist” catholics is that while they oppose homosexuality under the pretense of “being traditional” they support other things which the church has severely opposed in the past.
for example,
women’s rights, democracy, free speech, etc. a hundred years ago all these ideologies were considered “anti-catholic” and “heretical” and etc. a hundred years ago a catholic could not support women’s rights, a catholic could not support democracy, so if all these modern conservative catholics were alive a hundred years ago, they would be in the exact same position as me and other progressive catholics are today! they would be mocked, labeled heretics, etc. so all im saying is that conservative catholics shouldnt pretend that they are so traditional and immediately mock/condescend a more progressive thinking catholic.
and i wish to add to me response to RobertinSD, that i do not support gay marriage in the church, i merely support their right to marry in the civil courts.

You have some basic things wrong, and this is not uncommon for “progressive” Catholics. The Catholic Church fully supports rights for all people: women’s rights, free speech, rights for those with homosexual inclinations, etc.

But notice that those are general ideas. The specific rights and the laws enacted to uphold them are not necessarily absolutes. Those with same-sex attraction are obviously entitled to participate in the public square, and to be treated with the same respect as everyone else. But it’s impossible to extend the rights of marriage to them because they are not participating in any actions which form the foundation of marriage: the biological act which is designed to perhaps result in conception. (Since you are Catholic, I presume that I don’t have to parse words such as “designed.”)

As an analogy, consider the rights of all people to have access to food, shelter, clothing, and health care. The Church is certainly a proponent of those rights. But how a society fulfills those rights is open to debate. I suspect that you are all for socialized health care. Why don’t we then have a national socialized plan for distributing food?

Those kinds of things are where “conservative” and “progressive” Catholics are free to debate. But the idea of homosexual sex is intrinsically evil. Thus, there is no point to debate when it comes to the rights of marriage. So don’t get mad – there is no inconsistency.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

YES IT IS, it is a sin of lust and it causes a whole host of health problems, so the people who selling tobbacco and alcohol are basically guilty of negligent murder. they profit from the pain and suffering of their customers yet i dont see catholics calling for the outlawing of these harmful substances. the world would be a far better place without tobacco and alcohol, but it would NOT be a far better place without gay marriage.

Different poisons do not have the same degrees of toxicity and impact on individuals and society. Abuse of tobacco and alcohol indeed pose health risks and laws have actually been put in place for protection of others, e.g., restrictions on sales and use of said substances, and penalties with violations like withdrawal of license to drive with those who are caught for drunk driving a second time.

Please read Post #135, my reply to WeightedHeart.

Gay ‘marriage’ WOULD greatly impact society. Since laws are instructive, legalizing gay ‘marriage’ leads to unfettered indoctrination of children in schools normalizing homosexuality and the great potential of challenges to the first amendment. Already, in places where gay ‘marriage’ had been passed by legislators or decided by judicial ruling, incidentally, never by direct voting of the people, LGB groups have started to move in said direction. Religious liberty is being infringed with challenges to teaching that homosexual acts are sinful and wrong, with claims that such constitute hate speech.

it is already a piece of paper in the eyes of the civil court. for us catholics marriage is ofcourse a spiritual matter, but that doesnt mean we should force the state to accept that view! because if you want a theocracy so bad then go live in the phillipines, did you know in the phillipines you can get up to 14 years for adultery? would you agree if the USA would bring such a law? or maybe yoiu’d be happier in saudi arabia where people are beheaded for blasphemy. theocracies do not work. even Jesus Christ himself did not push for a theocracy. “my kingdom is not if this world” -Jesus Christ

Nobody is attempting to change the form of government to a theocracy. How do you get to arguing that the U.S. government could even become theocratic when its laws would not allow such from happening? All faiths have a right to be heard in the public square. It is not just Catholics who oppose gay ‘marriage.’ People of other faiths are against it too.

as i said before, then we would have to criminalise adultery and blasphemey as well. and hey! there are countries where that IS illegal, so go live there if you yearn for a theocracy so badly. this is my point you are inconsistent, you cant pick and choose which sins to criminalise and legalise, if you want the state to view marriage by catholic standards then for the sake of consistency it should view other things by catholic standards as well. should we also ban work on sundays?

Not all personal freedoms and individual acts can be and need not be regulated the same way. Adultery and blasphemy are poor examples to put side by side with the efforts of activist homosexuals and their apologists to legalize gay ‘marriage.’

Do you see a movement to legalize or to give legal benefits to adulterers and blasphemers? Don’t homosexuals have the freedom to associate and pursue relationships? Is there any law enforcement official checking on their liaisons, issuing citations?
,

 

[toosan1967]

Why does a government give out marriage licenses? I wish somebody from the pro-same-sex side would give a succinct answer to this; we could then build from there…

As a reliable and unending source of income for the state/county/city…?

 

[JimG]

Permit me to offer a somewhat wider view of gay marriage and civilization. Gay marriage is a symptom of collapse, not a cause. I don’t think that gay marriage will cause the collapse of Western Civilization. That is a process already well underway. The collapse of both family and civilization having progressed to its current stage is the only reason homosexual marriage has become a possibility.

Here is a quote from P. Sorokin’s “Cultural and Social Dynamics.”

“The family as a sacred union of husband and wife, of parents and children, will continue to disintegrate. Divorces and separations will increase until any profound difference between socially sanctioned marriages and illicit sex-relationship disappears. Children will be separated earlier and earlier from parents. The main sociocultural functions of the family will further decrease until the family becomes a mere incidental cohabitation of male and female while the home will become a mere overnight parking place mainly for sex relationship.”
Note his reference to “mere incidental cohabitation of male and female.” The work was written in 1957. He didn’t foresee gay marriage, though the family disintegration he foresaw now makes it possible.

The Sorokin quote is reprinted in “Family and Civilization,” by Carle C. Zimmerman, who lays out three crises of family in the history of western civilization, one occurring in Greece, one in Rome, and the latest one occurring now. The current family crisis has been brewing for several centuries, and Zimmerman predicts the results will be the same.

“The crisis will be identical in nature to the two previous crises in Greece and Rome. The results will be much more drastic in the U.S. because, being the most extreme and inexperienced of the aggregates of Western civilization, it will take its first real “sickness” most violently.”

He predicts there will be virtually no interest in heading off this crisis, with the exception of the Christian church which is itself out of favor. “Anyone who even suggests that the preservation of the familistic system is desirable is simply considered out of his head by the modern Plutarchs.”

Combine the disintegration of marriage, the dissolution of the family, and the atomization of society, with looming national bankruptcies, and the result will be even worse than the previous crises. The governments will be unable to cope. We may get gay marriage, and any other type of coupling we want, but only as a result of societal disintegration.

 

[surritter]

As a reliable and unending source of income for the state/county/city…?

That might be true, but then the govt should have no problem giving out marriage certificates for 3 people, or a man and his dog.
So it’s plain as day: once the procreation element is stripped from the meaning of marriage, there is no logical way to define it without having constantly shifting boundaries.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Permit me to offer a somewhat wider view of gay marriage and civilization. Gay marriage is a symptom of collapse, not a cause. I don’t think that gay marriage will cause the collapse of Western Civilization. That is a process already well underway. The collapse of both family and civilization having progressed to its current stage is the only reason homosexual marriage has become a possibility.

Why can’t it be both a symptom of collapse, as well as an additional cause for the continuing collapse?

 

[JimG]

Why can’t it be both a symptom of collapse, as well as an additional cause for the continuing collapse?

It can of course be both, and it is. Legalization of homosexual marriage simply continues to widen the breakdown of marriage which was, at least in the previous century, begun with the widespread acceptance of contraception, thereby breaking the link between marriage and procreation.

As in previous eras of family crisis, that breakdown leads ultimately to depopulation, with civilizations depending heavily on immigration to provide the next generations of society.

But if family life had not reached its current state of collapse, most likely homosexual marriage would never have become an issue. Unfortuneately, simply holding the line against gay marriage will not be sufficient to stem the disintegration of the family, at least in my view–as well as in the view of Zimmerman.

It makes me glad I’m getting old. If I’m lucky I may be dead before the chaos ensues.