Same Sex Marriage?

Why is this a government question? They are not a capable body to make such a definition. I think the government should get out of the marriage business and let competent bodies make the call. They can use another word for what same sex couples want to do. If you agree, consider signing the petition linked below.

wh.gov/UwiP

I’m not into signing petitions, because I usually get a load of spam afterward, so I’m going to pass on this. My suspicion is that the push for same sex “marriage” is because these couples want the same financial benefits as traditional married couples (1 man + 1 woman,) and MOST specifically for tax breaks, since many corporations and insurance companies extend insurance benefits to same sex partners of established couples, and there doesn’t seem to be any rule that they go through a ceremony or buy some kind of license. Just sharing the same address for a certain period of time will do.

As far as all the other things married couples can do, that is pretty limitless. You can, for example, appoint anyone at all as an heir, a health care proxy, purchase property jointly with anyone you choose, and you can even adopt a child as a single person, no partner needed. Lest we forget, you can even incorporate yourself and another person: A corporation, for the purposes of law, is considered “a person.”

Since the government is whining about a lack of incoming revenue, I’d think they’d want to make the marriage tax benefit as narrow as possible, rather than open it up to a couple of million people who wouldn’t otherwise be entitled to it.

There is no such thing as “the marriage business.” Anyone see same-sex marriage at the voting booth? Who put it there? Why? Why does anybody need anybody else’s permission to live how they want?

I suggest you visit the marriage equality web site. Homosexual persons want nothing less than the word marriage as the name for their living arrangement.

Peace,
Ed

Marriage is not a word that the government has the authority to define. If the government attempts to define arrangements between two members of the same sex as marriage, it has stepped outside its area of authority. It would be equivalent to the government trying to define what a planet is against the consensus of the governing scientific body whose job it is to define such things.

The government can use the word marriage to be specific in laws but it does not have any authority to redefine a word. If those in the same sex attraction world want no less than marriage, then the truth is that they cannot be married expect in their own imaginations. They can have a ceremony, they can have a license (marriage is a license, not a right by the way), they can even have people saying they are married, but given that no legitimate definition has changed, they are living in a fantasy world. God defines marriage. It predates civilizations and recorded history places it as the first act between man and woman instituted by God Himself. The short lived, incompetent, US government has no claim on the word or its definition or its institution. People have no right to redefine a word based on majority decision (think of the consequences of that possibility).

Using the word marriage is not equality because the two things are not equal. Men and women can have children naturally with each other, same sex couples cannot for example. In order to distinguish between the two, a new word should be used… you pick it since it has been established by you. Marriage is God’s word since He established it and you aren’t going to be changing His mind anytime soon.

God Bless.

Just FYI, this is through the White House so there would be no spam involved.

God Bless.

I believe you are correct. I have a niece that is a gay rights agita… err… activist and her stated agenda is to normalize homosexuality as just another way of living. But listening to her she wants to ultimately show that marriage means nothing and to tear it down to “free women from the oppression of marriage and children.” Is she a wackadoo? Maybe, but there are plenty of ssm supporters that see marriage as archaic and seek to tear it down.

I think the homosexual group wants these rights automatically which can be done in two ways. Redefine marriage to include same sex couples, or create a new license that covers same sex couples which can then be granted automatic rights however the government sees fit. Since redefining marriage is not a legitimate option but an exercise in futility (or smoke and mirrors), seems the other is better in my opinion.

God Bless.

If you are in agreement with same sex marriage, i would recomend you take the 'Catholic off your religion name… (if you believe only what you want from scripture, it is not scripture you believe in, but yourself) Marriage is a sacrement fro a male and female and if two homosexual persons want to live together, i suggest they use another definition than marriage to their bond. These Men of god are called to sainthood like any other one of us. Their burden is same sex attraction, many times not by their own will. But they have to resist their sexual desires towards the ones they love in order to be good Christians, therefore, they should not marry another man, it would destruct the definition of marriage. Witch is a sacrement and sign of the Covenant that god made with his people. God made us able to reproduce, our bodies are specifically designed for that purpose. If two men live together forever, it is okay, but it is not okay for them to use their partner’s bodies for pleasure only. They are called to Chastity. In the Bible, the sin of Adultery is cited before the sin of same sex sex. The same sex friends that comited same sex sexual activities are not more bad than Men who cheated on their wives. They deserve love, respect and understanding by everyone as they are normal human beings and sinners just like you and me. They can go to the sacrement of confession and try to live as saintfully as they can, but might fall again. We should not juge them, but we should also not lead them to thinking that marriage would be acceptable for them and their partner. We can love them and accept that they love each other… their is no greater friends than the ones that you truely love and that love you back. It would be wrong to give them the title of Maried as it would make it sound as if they are free to be sexually active together. I know some men that have sexual tendencies towards same sex men… They are living very holly lives and will definately earn their heaven easier than many of us as they are resisting and have been resisting some of their deepest temptations.

i might be missing points here and there or be unclear, but i am just saying what i think, and i think it is leaning towards our catholic belief. if not, please correct me. And i will do my best to understand what god wants us to.

Peace

Marriage is for the good of society. So is government in its ideal form. There is no conflict of interest when government regulates and documents valid marriages.

I don’t disagree, I just think the problem is that the government is marrying people. If they were out of the business, they could just create a new license for same sex couple with some name they choose (other than marriage) since they established it. Then the authorities at the lower level (i.e. priest, minister, etc.) who has the authority to enact unions can then determine which licenses to administer or not administer and the government remains neutral which is closer to their ideal role.

God Bless.

Yes, and the National Organization for Women, a radical, Marxist, tear down the family and gender means nothing organization wants women to abort, get artificial contraceptives paid for by our employers (if not, it’s a War on Women!). Can you imagine women telling other women to act like men, to ignore their own biology, and to become female chauvenist pigs who have “just sex” with men. like using a toilet, and walking away?

www.now.org/

firstthings.com/onthesquare/2006/08/robert-george-beyond-gay-marri

Peace,
Ed

Isn’t that the question Eve asked before she bit into the apple?

Actually no. While the Bible does not specify a particular fruit, it does describe it in tangible terms as being good for food (edible). The serpent beguiled her and basically told her God was not telling the truth.

bible.cc/genesis/3-3.htm

bible.cc/genesis/3-4.htm

bible.cc/genesis/3-5.htm

So Eve and Adam decided not to listen to God and chose to disobey. You would think that they knew God was God and this other creature, uh, wasn’t.

Peace,
Ed

The priest needs a valid marriage license from the State in order to marry a couple, so he acts as an agent of the State and of the Church at the same time.

Gay couples can and are doing whatever they want, but just go to the Marriage Equality web site. They insist on calling gay whatever it is, marriage.

When John McCain was running for President, he had a short exchange with Ellen Degeneres on her show where, after he was done speaking, she ended by saying that what gays wanted should be called marriage.

ebay.com/itm/Gay-and-Lesbian-Wedding-Cake-Toppers-Same-Sex-Marriage-/230892807548?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&var=&hash=item35c248a57c

Peace,
Ed

As a gay marriage advocate, I’ve been suggesting this course of action for several years. The government should stop licensing ‘marriages’ entirely. They should only be dealing in civil unions, with across-the-board equal benefits for all. Anyone who wants to be “married” would need to find a religious authority willing to perform such a ceremony (probably not an overly difficult task, even for a gay couple).

Gay folks say they want “marriage” because that’s what the government calls the institution, and for them it’s an issue of equality, both in name and in practice. Consider that - if the government started offering civil unions for straight couples, and “domestic partnerships” for gay couples, we’d be in the exact same place we are right now - except that gay couples would be wanting theirs to be called “civil unions” as well. The word “marriage” is only being bandied about because the government already has it on the table in labeling straight partnerships.

It has nothing to do with the government. Gays have stated they don’t want civil unions or domestic partnerships. Why? Because it would make them “second-class citizens.”

From the PFLAG web site:

“Since 2000, PFLAG has had an official policy statement on marriage equality that states its opposition to any attempts at either the federal or state level to introduce constitutional amendments restricting marriage to heterosexual couples, rendering LGBT people second-class citizens.”

This isn’t about the government. This is about insisting on a radical redefinition of the meaning of the word marriage.

If gays want to live together, they don’t need anybody’s permission.

Peace,
Ed

All gays have stated this? Universally? That’s a very bold claim you have there.

Government has an interest in the promotion of the common good and the maintenance of the moral consensus, so why in the world would it bow out of the marriage business? It has already done enough harm withdrawing what protections it once offered.

I am deeply alarmed by what I see as a rise in libertarianism on these forums. Do you people not realize that libertarianism is one particular strain of the same Enlightenment cancer that’s killed Catholics by the millions over the last few centuries? I suspect it’s well-meaning in that libertarianism seems to be a virile alternative to the leftism of the day (mainstream “conservatism” being a shallower and less principled form of that leftism), but for Heaven’s sake, it’s clearly at odds with the real and concrete teachings of the Church.

Marriage Equality USA
Human Rights Campaign
International Gay and Lesbian Association
International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender & Intersex Law Association
Global Respect In Education
National Center for Lesbian Rights
Freedom to Marry
Equality Across America
Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Change

Nope. They have decided the Return on Investment is greater when they get to major politicians, judges, owners of large corporations and others in positions of perceived power. Reaching individuals is just not as cost effective.

Peace,
Ed

It’s always been here. A vocal minority post the same things over and over using different words and/or questions. Yes, and the teachings of the Church encompass more than “because God said so.”

Male + Male
Female + Female
Male + Female = the only way we get the next generation of human beings. You don’t have to have any belief in God to know that, but it works out better if you do.

Peace,
Ed

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.