Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

[RevDon]

I object to it on a policy level. Why should two guys whose chief tie is sexual have a civil advantage over two guys who are sharing an apartment?

Why should a guy and a girl who are cohabiting possessing a marriage license have any advantage?

 

[RobbyS]

Polygamy is of course, not same sex marriage. It is one man and many wives. My point is simply that same sex couples are by nature incapable of marriage. They are by nature incapable of marital relations.

The scriptural quote is apt: “At the beginnng of creation God made them male and female.” Jesus did not tell his listeners anything new in saying that: they can observe that human beings are male and female. He did clarity that divorce was not allowed, and that marriage was between one man and one woman.

He made no mention of same sex marriage, because it was never even a question. His listeners knew that marriage was between man and woman just as every other civilization knew, by knowing the nature of man and woman. Sexual complemtarity has never been hard to discover.

Jesus’ mission was to the Jews, and in the Jewish culture homosexuality was associated with false gods. There was no occasion for him to condemn it. Instead he proposed a highly elevated view of marriage, of the sexual union between man and woman. He forbade divorce because he wanted to put men and women on the same footing, which was not the case in Jewish society. He certainly elevated the status of women as a whole, as the New Testament makes clear that Christ drew many,many woman into the Church.

 

[polki]

If you peel away the layers of the issue, you would see clearly that the “goal” is for homosexual marriage/unions to equal traditional marriage in all ways, without distinction. This is impossible, and will never happen, just based on anatomy alone, no matter how many laws are in place. Bringing up issues such as divorce, cohabitation, out of wedlock parenting, dysfunctional families, etc to justify “gay marriage” is ridiculous, since all of those situations are also not in the best interest of society. Therefore, why should we be in favor of any of that?
As Christians, we should be against anything that debases traditional marriage, and strive to strengthen traditional marriage for future generations, so that more children will have a chance to be raised in a stable home by both a father and a mother with good moral values. That is what will be best for society. You can “tolerate” whatever you want. I would like what is “best” in God’s eyes.

 

[Stephen168]

Here’s a little interesting information on the issue being discussed in recent posts:
Google: benefits of marriage in the us

nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html
marriageequality.org/get-the-facts

“However, as of mid-2011, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) denies married, civil unionized and domestic partnershipped same-sex couples approximately 1,100 federal benefits currently reserved as special privileges to opposite-sex married couples. Even though their marriage may be recognized within a couple’s state, the federal government considers them to be simply roommates; their children are regarded as illegitimate.” religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614329/ (non-economic benefits)
hrc.org/resources/entry/an-overview-of-federal-rights-and-protections-granted-to-married-couples

Do you think that there’s a good reason to deny these to your fellow citizens?

So you would support repealing these advantages from married people?

 

[Stephen168]

Why should a guy and a girl who are cohabiting possessing a marriage license have any advantage?

So you would support repealing these advantages from married people?

 

[edwest2]

Yes! We demand that sex be restricted to two people who are married to each other!
Then we refuse to permit two people of the same gender to marry each other.

Who are you talking to? There are no judges or politicians here. Who’s stopping you from doing what you want?

Peace,
Ed

 

[RevDon]

Who are you talking to? There are no judges or politicians here. Who’s stopping you from doing what you want?

Peace,
Ed

“We” the body politic, who elect legislators who defeat gay marriage laws, who vote on constitutional amendments.

 

[edwest2]

Jesus’ mission was to the Jews, and in the Jewish culture homosexuality was associated with false gods. There was no occasion for him to condemn it. Instead he proposed a highly elevated view of marriage, of the sexual union between man and woman. He forbade divorce because he wanted to put men and women on the same footing, which was not the case in Jewish society. He certainly elevated the status of women as a whole, as the New Testament makes clear that Christ drew many,many woman into the Church.

Oh brother. More political-speak. Jesus came to call sinners to repentance.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

“We” the body politic, who elect legislators who defeat gay marriage laws, who vote on constitutional amendments.

I don’t understand your point at all. Everybody gets one vote. Everybody votes for what they want. Don’t gay people vote for what they want?

Peace,
Ed

 

[JimG]

Jesus’ mission was to the Jews, and in the Jewish culture homosexuality was associated with false gods. There was no occasion for him to condemn it. Instead he proposed a highly elevated view of marriage, of the sexual union between man and woman. He forbade divorce because he wanted to put men and women on the same footing, which was not the case in Jewish society. He certainly elevated the status of women as a whole, as the New Testament makes clear that Christ drew many,many woman into the Church.

There was no occasion for him to condemn homosexual marriage because it was already condemned and nobody was disputing it. Or rather, homosexual acts were condemned, and so the issue of ‘marriage’ was not even a possibility.

Indeed, it was not even a possibility in societies which did not condemn homosexual acts. Some societies tolerated nearly any kind of sexual liaisons but only recognized marriage as between men and women, since such marital unions had the capacity to, and did, ensure the continuance of society. Even non-Christian, and non-Jewish societies recognized that same sex unions could never be marital.

 

[JimG]

Repeal the laws with give benefits to married people. Then single and marriage people would be treated the same. You don’t have to create a legal fiction. ref post 243.

If indeed the institution of marriage has so far disintegrated as to have lost any connection to its marital character, then there is certainly no need for the state to benefit it.

 

[RevDon]

I don’t understand your point at all. Everybody gets one vote. Everybody votes for what they want. Don’t gay people vote for what they want?

Peace,
Ed

By definition, Gay people are a minority. They may vote for what they want, but unless others vote for it too, it’ll never pass.

 

[RevDon]

There was no occasion for him to condemn homosexual marriage because it was already condemned and nobody was disputing it. Or rather, homosexual acts were condemned, and so the issue of ‘marriage’ was not even a possibility.

Indeed, it was not even a possibility in societies which did not condemn homosexual acts. Some societies tolerated nearly any kind of sexual liaisons but only recognized marriage as between men and women, since such marital unions had the capacity to, and did, ensure the continuance of society. Even non-Christian, and non-Jewish societies recognized that same sex unions could never be marital.

This is a thread to discuss civil marriage.
But I suspect most of the people who read and post here find it difficult to separate civil and religious ideas on this issue.
Jesus did indeed show compassion for the oppressed, and had a special fondness for sinners, to whom he showed concern and kindness. It has taken until the 20th century for his teaching on the equality of women to be realized in Western society, and even there, not fully.

Saint Paul showed us the spiritual significance of marriage when he likened the relationship of spouses to that of Christ and the Church. He most certainly wasn’t referring to any physical sexual activity. He based it on love, and we may name specific attributes of that love: accountability, forgiveness, honesty, concern, attention, truth, gentleness (please feel free to add to my list). Paul said, It’s hard to understand the relationship between Christ and the Church, but when you look upon the relationship of a loving couple, you will get a glimpse of what it’s like.

Does anyone deny that a couple of the same sex can exhibit those holy characteristics of relationship? Then why can we not hold them up as an example of the Christ-Church relationship in a sacramental way? We acknowledge the marriage of sterile couples as sacramental. Is it because this would go against our reading of scripture and our age-old tradition?

Peter was faced with a personal crisis when he was invited to the home of Cornelius, a powerful Roman official. Cornelius wanted Peter to stay for supper, a non-kosher supper. Peter knew the laws about kosher food in the scriptures. He had heard the rabbis condemn non-kosher foods his whole life, and he agreed with them. He couldn’t bear the thought of the stuff. Being in the same house with it made him want to retch. He went up on the roof to pray, and God presented him with a vision of everything he so abhorred. “Eat, “ God said. “No! I can’t” said Peter. Again God said, “Eat.” “I never…No!” A third time, “Eat.” And Peter said, “Now I get it. God despises no one who seeks Him.” It wasn’t just about food; it was about people. Centuries of teaching, chapters of scripture were overturned by a new revelation of God’s love.

Is God offering us a new revelation to overcome what we have been taught was sin and we came to abhor? Is there any sense in which we may perceive our acceptance of that which we previously despised to be an act of love, a reflection of God’s love, even if it presents a discontinuity with what we always believed?

 

[Stephen168]

If indeed the institution of marriage has so far disintegrated as to have lost any connection to its marital character, then there is certainly no need for the state to benefit it.

I think societal support for marriage has declined as marriage has disintegrated; mostly in the non-government work place. I think it will continue. Of course it will take political pressure to undo government goodies as citizens sour on supporting sterile unions. I mean why should upper middle class people get government hand outs because they bought a piece of paper. Why don’t we give them to poor single people.

I find it most interesting that supporters of same sex “marriage” want the government goodies but don’t even want to talk why there have been societal goodies in the first place. They refuse to talk about each benefit they think married people get and have an honest discussion about whether it should continue.

But on the other hand when married working couples paid higher income tax, it was the pro-marriage people that lobbied and got equilty. The anti-marriage side doesn’t really what to think about equality or much really, they’re just throwing their tantrum.

 

[Stephen168]

This is a thread to discuss civil marriage.

Define marriage

 

[RevDon]

There was no occasion for him to condemn homosexual marriage because it was already condemned and nobody was disputing it. Or rather, homosexual acts were condemned, and so the issue of ‘marriage’ was not even a possibility.

Indeed, it was not even a possibility in societies which did not condemn homosexual acts. Some societies tolerated nearly any kind of sexual liaisons but only recognized marriage as between men and women, since such marital unions had the capacity to, and did, ensure the continuance of society. Even non-Christian, and non-Jewish societies recognized that same sex unions could never be marital.

Those who are complaining that gay marriage would change the meaning of marriage overlook the massive shift that came about in marriage as a result of the teaching of Jesus. Females were property in Jesus’ day, either of their fathers or of their husbands to whom they were sold for a “bride price.” Love, mutuality, suitability, compatibility didn’t matter,and a woman did what her husband ordered. Marriage was a contract for the ownership of property and services, and adultery was stealing what belonged to another man.
Male children were the next generation of property owners, and men wanted to be sure that the next owners were legitimate heirs. It was cold Jesus introduced mutuality into the relationship.

Aren’t we glad–men and women both–that the image of marriage was changed? Doesn’t this have more potential for mirroring God’s love"

 

[Stephen168]

Does anyone deny that a couple of the same sex can exhibit those holy characteristics of relationship? Then why can we not hold them up as an example of the Christ-Church relationship in a sacramental way? We acknowledge the marriage of sterile couples as sacramental. Is it because this would go against our reading of scripture and our age-old tradition?

Sodomy is disordered behavior; contrary to God’s design. Therefore to a Christian it is a sin. What is your definition of marriage?

 

[Stephen168]

Those who are complaining that gay marriage would change the meaning of marriage overlook the massive shift that came about in marriage as a result of the teaching of Jesus. Females were property in Jesus’ day, either of their fathers or of their husbands to whom they were sold for a “bride price.” Love, mutuality, suitability, compatibility didn’t matter,and a woman did what her husband ordered. Jesus introduced mutuality into the relationship. Marriage was a contract for the ownership of property and services, and adultery was stealing what belonged to another man.
Male children were the next generation of property owners, and men wanted to be sure that the next owners were legitimate heirs. It was cold

Aren’t we glad–men and women both–that the image of marriage was changed? Doesn’t this have more potential for mirroring God’s love"

This is a thread to discuss civil marriage.

What is your definition of marriage?

 

[Imcatholic7]

Since Catholics don’t consider civil marriage a sacrament anyway, then why not just let homosexuals marry each other civilly? So long as any laws passed passed do not force Catholic sacramental gay unions, why not just tolerate them? We don’t even allow two straight Catholics who are merely married civilly to receive Communion, because we don’t consider civil marriage to be an authentic marial union in the Christian sense.

To say otherwise would mean that we actually are giving civil unions a significant measure of validity.

That would be allowing homosexual relations which are very wrong.

 

[edwest2]

Again, why do proponents of civil marriage need our approval? And why the reference to God/Jesus? As it stands, civil means secular and excludes all religious beliefs/trappings. So that argument doesn’t mean anything.

The two can’t mix meanings. One is civil (no God/religion), the other is sacramental (including God/religion).

This is just repeating the repetitions.



Ed