Gay 'marriages'?


#1

I want some feedback on how you all view the gay ‘marriages’ that started occurring in Mass. today …

I’m talking with a friend who feels that as long as nobody bothers him he doesn’t care. I used to feel this way years ago. Now I feel that in striking down the gay marriage ban because “it was against their freedom to marry” … that in affect they are taking my freedom away to live and raise my children in a moral environment.

Do others feel this way? Does anybody have any insights on the particulars about how the church views this whole situation? … besides it being wrong of course :slight_smile:

PS… I think this board is great


#2

[quote=AJW]I want some feedback on how you all view the gay ‘marriages’ that started occurring in Mass. today …

I’m talking with a friend who feels that as long as nobody bothers him he doesn’t care. I used to feel this way years ago. Now I feel that in striking down the gay marriage ban because “it was against their freedom to marry” … that in affect they are taking my freedom away to live and raise my children in a moral environment.

Do others feel this way? Does anybody have any insights on the particulars about how the church views this whole situation? … besides it being wrong of course :slight_smile:

PS… I think this board is great
[/quote]

The argument “If it doesn’t bother us why bother” is self defeating because human is a social creature and is able to be simpathetic and emphatic.

If we hold that argument as principle then:

  1. might as well let people use drug
  2. Might as well let people kill themselves
  3. Might as well let people walk naked in the street (hey, you can always not look)

etc etc


#3

HAHA I thought about that example too


#4

Marriage is a Judeo-Christian tradition adopted by society as a whole, and therefore changing the ‘definition’ of marriage discriminates agains faith based groups by ‘watering down’ the sacred tradition - even if it is just a legal arrangement. No matter how you look at it, you can’t call an apple an orange, and you can’t refer to a gay couple as married.

And where will it stop? If we allow gay marriage, polygamist marriages and inter-family marriages won’t be far behind using the same equality rational.

This debate has been a hot topic here in Canada for the last few months since our supreme court struck down the gay marriage ban as ‘unconstitutional’. We have an election coming up, and this is going to be a big election issue.

My main concern about legalizing gay marriage is that there will almost certainly be a group trying to gain media attention that will approach a Catholic priest and ask him to marry them. Of course the priest will say “No”, but a publicity circus will ensue, and a supreme court challenge will be launched against the Church charging discriminatory practices or something like that.

Here’s a website which offers some further insites on this issue:

marriagecanada.ca

As I said, this has been a hot topic in Canada recently, and much has been written on it - most of which is linked to from the above site. This info should help you with further info on why we shouldn’t waver on this issue.


#5

Just one addition to this thread which I think is important - no matter how caught up we get in this debate, we can never never let hate enter into our hearts. Let’s debate this thing honestly and charitably, with a spirit of love. We have no right to judge anybody else, but we do have the right to defend and protect our beliefs.


#6

Marriage is a sacrament, a covenant between husband, wife and God. Whatever God has brought together, let no man tear asunder.

So what place does an atheistic, secular, non-sacramental government have in licensing, performing marriage ceremonies, and declaring a couple married?

I think: NO PLACE.

We don’t have government performed baptisms, or circumcisions. We don’t have government performed confirmations, or clergy ordinations.

Why do we allow governments to perform marriages?

The government should have no right to perform marriages, this is a “seperation of church and state” argument right there, since they’re trying to copy a religious ceremony.


#7

I think it is a Satanic attack on the institution of the family and that once families break down society breaks down.

Next in line will be the polygamists wanting their “rights” and then the NAMBLA folks.


#8

As a citizen of Massachusetts (as embarrassing as that is to admit it), and as someone engaged to be married someday, let me offer my views on gay “marriage”.

Although I was serving in Iraq with my National Guard unit for almost a year, I kept up with the news regarding this issue through the Internet. I also strongly believe that marriage is between ONE MAN, and ONE WOMAN!!! And as Hardcore Archbishop Sean O’Malley of Boston pointed out seveal months ago, marriage between one man and one woman trandscends all religions and cultures, and he’s right!! Even in the most godless, athiestic communist countries, marriage is between one man, and one woman. Even in the darkest jungle recesses of Africa and South America, even the natives of these places for whom Christianity is a foreign concept, marriage is between one man, and one woman!!!

While I agree with the religious (for lack of a better way to put it) arguements being made by REAL Christians here in MA, those who support gay “marriage” won’t be won over with Christian arguements, as true as they might be. We’ve seen that with pro-abortionists; they reject the Christian truth that all life is sacred. In my opinion, only medical and scientific evidence will convince pro-abortionists that they are wrong!! Even an honest athiest cannot deny the scientific and medical evidence of an ultrasound.

In the same way, we have to show gay “marriage” supporters that marriage HISTORICALLY does indeed trandscend all religions and cultures. Even honest athiests cannot deny the history of Marriage and it’s effect on ALL societies and cultures!!! Of course, for us as Christians, marriage is much more than a piece of paper filed in our local city and town halls, or county courthouses; it’s a COVENANT declared before God!!!

Anyway, please pray hard for us here in Massachusetts!!! Even in my town, at least two gay couples applied for marriage licenses yesterday. Pray that Catholics here (about 50% of our population) become mobilized to get this satanic travesty overturned. The earliest we in Massachusetts can do anything about this satanic travesty is November 2006, to add an amendment to our state constitution!! Pray hard that this will happen!!!


#9

Taking the long-range view, I think the adoption of homosexual “marriage” is a bullet between the eyes for our society. No culture which has embraced alternative sexualities has survived past the 3rd generation.

We can get a good look at which way we’re headed by examining the Scandinavian countries which legalized homosexual “marriage” 20 to 30 years ago, specifically Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. Rather than having no effect on the institution of marriage, homosexual unions have hastened the decay of marriage as a whole, including heterosexual marriage.

Most children born in these countries today are born out of wedlock, with the parents drifting in and out of liasons and relationships with various partners, while the children are left to figure out for themselves what their “family” consists of. The whole operation brings to mind the “herd” concept of quadruped ruminants in an African game park—the males couple with whoever happens to be in estrous, and the resulting calves belong to the herd.

This, combined with our woeful economic state, the ongoing balkanization of our society along ethnic, religious, and moral lines, and the threat of foreign terrorism, I think, will eventually culminate in our demise as a society. In 50 to 60 years, neither the United States nor any of the current Western European countries will exist as viable political entities. We don’t have hordes of Germanic tribesmen waiting to pounce on us, as did the Roman Empire, but we do have waiting hordes of militant Muslims.

I’m sorry to be so pessimisitic, but that’s how I see the sociological and demographic trends developing. Homosexual “marriage” is simply another step in the downward direction we began travelling when we decided to allow legalized abortion, no-fault divorce, and the suppression of religious expression in public life. Homosexual “marriage” may be the catalyst that eventually causes the collapse, but the conditions which allowed this abberation to flourish were put into place long ago.

My two cents. :slight_smile:


#10

I’m gonna have to agree with Bob on this one, marriage is none of the governments buisness, no matter who is getting married.

One thing that should be said is that if it werent for government interference in marriage, we wouldnt have this problem in the first place! Consider the reasons why gays are getting married. They want tax cuts, rights to visit sick loved ones, welfare benefits, etc. Now, if you havent noticed, these are all hand-outs by the government, get rid of government meddling in marriage, and you will no longer have any gays applying for marriage. that simple.


#11

Not too long ago in my law class, we were discussing gay “marriage”: some advocating it, others opposing it (one specific individual going so far as to say we should kill homosexuals – something I vigorously oppose, perhaps more so than I oppose gay “marriage”).

As usual, the argument for gay “marriage” went something like this: if two persons love each other, they should be allowed to marry each other, regardless if they’re both members of the same sex. Convincing? Of course not. Emotional? Somewhat. Stupid? Completely.

My argument against gay “marriage” went something like this: I oppose gay “marriage” for the same reasons everyone else in my class opposes incestous “marriage.” A girl quickly responded by saying (I’m paraphrasing): “Ok, fine. The government should define marriage as being between two people who love each other but are not related.”

What’s wrong with her counter-argument? It backfires on her (and on everyone else who subscribes to it). I oppose gay “marriage” because I subscribe to a code of morality. She, and everyone else in the class, oppose incestous “marriage” because they, too, subscribe to a code of morality, one which is violated when, say, a brother and a sister fall in love and decide they want to marry each other. If I have no right, as gay “marriage” supporters argue, to impose my code of morality on gays by not allowing them to marry, then what gives them the right to impose, by their own reasoning and logic, their code of morality on incestous couples by opposing marriage between them? I see an utter lack of consistency, if you ask me.

Though my argument was hardly legal, I think it was a serious blow to gay “marriage” supporters (at least in my class).

But wait! My law teacher came up with a wonderful solution: let’s get rid of the institution of marriage! Right, Mr. Dando.

Shalom

(From a previous blog post of mine)


#12

Government must have some role in validating marriage. This is because marriage brings with it secular privileges and responsibilities. To say that the state should have no interest in “licensing, performing marriage ceremonies, and declaring a couple married” suggests that this is to be delegated solely to religious organizations. With the current mindset of “main stream” Protestant sects regarding homosexual clergy, why would we not expect a flood of same sex marriages except for the legal prohibitions? It is modern relativism which has brought us this far and except for the grace of God, I do not see the current trends to slow. Again time to pray for grace and for faithful Catholics (and Christians of good will) to defend marriage as between one man and one woman. Also, pray for those who would trade theology for zeitgeist.


#13

Please do not forget that part of the reason that governments regulate marriage is to protect mothers and minor children. Today, with the single parent and other non-traditional arrangements, we too easily forget that women needed some legal protection from men simply abandoning them and the young children that they had together. Naturally, these laws did not solve any problems (laws of man never do), but the women had some recourse in the courts.

All that said, using the argument that civil marriage laws are there to help protect mothers and children, why should there be gay marriages? There is no reason.

One thing that I am worried about has to do with the “civil rights issue.” The Church has tax free status. If a priest refuses to perform a gay ceremony, can the Church be sued for taking a political stand against someone’s civil rights? Will we be forced to condone sin or else lose that status?


#14

More than likely. Already there are issues about Catholic healthcare providers offering abortion and contraceptives to their employees. Certainly, this is a “great” way to attack the Church. If I were pitching for the other team, I would think now is the time to go all the way with the issue.


#15

I’m with John Derbyshire: we should stop dignifying it with the term “Gay Marriage” and refer to it as “Homogamy”. Why lend it a dignity it doesn’t deserve?


#16

No, keep in mind one of the benefits to being Catholic is that the priest has the rights, documented guidance, to refuse to marry a heterosexual couple as well, and could easily point to any number of cases in which he did so. Besides, at this point and for the near future, homosexuals are not a protected class, and quite frankly members of religious orders are. So it would be a losing case. As far as the contraceptive case with Catholic Charities, I can’t imagine they can’t or won’t get that overturned on appeal or bypass it with other legal maneuvers. It was a silly ruling that punished them for being an EOE and offering health insurance.


#17

[quote=Dave]We have no right to judge anybody else, but we do have the right to defend and protect our beliefs.
[/quote]

Well, let’s be careful what we say. While we may not be able to judge someone’s heart, we certainly can judge their actions. Too often I have heard the argument “who are you to judge.” Well I can’t judge someone’s heart, I can judge their actions. But if someone is advocating homosexuality, abortion, etc., I can certainly say - those actions are sins.


#18

They’re also likely going to try to force private employers to provide the same benefits to a same-sex “spouse” as they provide for real husbands and wives of their employees. So conscientious companies will probably have to end benefits for real spouses as the only way to avoid being forced to support immorality. :mad: :banghead:


#19

My impression is that most major companies already provide benefits for same-sex couples. I work for a major law firm and we provide health benefits for same-sex couples and, get this, opposite-sex couples that state they are in a committed relationship. Huh? “We don’t want the committment of marriage, but hey, we want the benefits that society and our employers are willing to dole out.” A major client came to our management and said “give homosexuals health benefits or our business goes elsewhere.”


#20

I agree with you, AJW. It reminds me of the old story of the frog in the pot of water. If you turn the heat up fast, he’ll jump out, but if you turn the heat up slowly, he’ll never notice, and he gets cooked.

If we would have jumped immediately from the moral standards of 50 years ago to the moral standards of today, there would have been a huge outcry. However, we’ve taken slow steps, year by year, allowing more filth on television, on bulletin boards, etc., and this gay marriage ruling is yet another step. Many Christians are more accepting of things now (for example, which television shows are okay for the kids to watch) than in years past.

I think we need to make a stand for Christian morals every time some issue comes up. If we don’t, what’s considered bad today will be considered okay a few years from now.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.