I don’t really “get” the gay marriage issue - maybe someone can shed some light on it for me.
I’m a Catholic, and I always vote for life. I vote for life because I allow my conscience to accept the truth of embryology (and through my theology, I pray for those who don’t accept it).
But, I don’t really understand the opposition to gay marriage - it’s not like the state is trying to force churches to recognize them.
I will admit, the idea of calling a gay civil union marriage is a little strange to me, because I don’t think it’s the same thing. Two dudes or chicks can’t build a family together, which is normally the purpose of marriage, in my opinion. But, I think if two gays want a committed relationship with the same benefits (drawbacks?) under the law as two heteros, I don’t really have a problem with that. If they insist on calling it marriage, I think it’s a little wacky but not enough to put up a fight about it.
What are your thoughts?
Just last week, in California, the gay lobby in California was handing out, to five year olds, “pledge cards” not to think bad thoughts or say naughty things aboug gays. The problem with gays is that they are not settling for the freedom to be left alone. They want the right to directly contradict the moral instruction of parents, in school, and they won’t stop until they borrow the institution of marriage for their own purposes.
NOT THE SAME AS YOURS
The reason is that "Gay Marriage" isn't marriage at all. They're trying to completely destroy the meaning of the word with this. There's no other reason for it.
It's a core part of the Left's attack on the family. A family is defined by a marriage, so if you can render the term meaningless, then family is meaningless too.
First the word "marriage" will be diluted down to "more than one person, living together, or not, and in a relationship, more or less." Then the word "family" will become something like "some people who may or may not live together and may or may not be related, but want to be treated like a family".
As Rush is fond of saying, "Words mean things!" and "marriage" means a man and a woman committed and bound to one another 'till death. (at least)
Well here’s the deal...they don’t want to just leave it at that. They want to brainwash other people’s children with homoness even if the parents don’t want them to. They were able to get the 9th Circuit Court to rule that parental rights stop at the schoolhouse door. In other words, parents don’t have the right to pull their children out of the brainwashing sessions when the queers come to school to teach them how to be tolerant little soldiers.
The intolerant demanding tolerance.
If it is codified into law, then it is protected by law--and spirals into other laws. Anti-discrimination laws, hate crime laws, etc. make them a protected class. You then have free speech abridged and quoting the Bible in public gets you thrown in jail (this has happened in Sweden, Canada, and laws proposed in Brazil and Australia. Also the protected anti-discrimination status makes it harder for health insurance companies to charge more for their risky lifestyle choices. It makes way for schools to promote homosexual activity to children.
But most of all, it further delegitimizes the family unit and structure, and weakens support for the little societal aid that families are given today.
It isn't about Gay Marriage, it's about Polygamy, it's about Incest, it's about Marriage not meaning anything.
The CA Attorney General, Jerry Brown, purposely changed the definition of the Proposition 8 as a Ban on Gay Marriage, which it really wasn't. It defined Marriage as being between a Man and a Woman.
Well, to begin with, you must understand that "gay marriage" is non-sequitur; the very term "marriage" absolutely REQUIRES, as an inherent part of its definition, an opposite-gendered couple.
If this still isn't clear to you, go spend five minutes in the fastener aisle at your local hardware store; take a pair of bolts out of a bin and "marry" them. No fair using other, uh, "attachments"; you've got to do it using JUST the two same-gendered fasteners. If you ever succeed, THEN you are free to support "gay marriage".
Now, the next thing you need to grasp is that this attempt to legally force "marriage" to be a term that applies to same-gendered couples. also, is rather like what we'd see if the softball leagues began lobbying to have their game called "baseball"; NOT, mind you, that they want their game to change; they just want it called "baseball" so they can be "equal" to the players in the Major Leagues.
Finally, the last thing you need to understand is that, in all of this, the tactics of the "queerly beloved" have run strangely parallel to those of the softball leagues; right down to the big balls and the underhanded pitching.
Your questions made me think and research this- to put in words is difficult, sometimes the simplest concepts are the most difficult to express. But I will try.
The benefits and legal protections/definitions of marriage under the law exist to protect the family unit , because it is a benefit to society as a whole that the family is protected- to ensure socialization and protection of the children that are the product of marriage.
Conversely it is a danger to society if the children are not properly socialized and that legal issues such as property rights, inheritance of assets etc are not properly defined.
same sex unions provide no benefit to society and can be argued to be a danger to society.
Therefore the government /society has no compelling reason to afford it the same legal protections as marriage, and it could be argued that the state has compelling reasons to discourage same sex unions just as it does to discourage procreation outside of marriage. ( Unless you assume the State has primary responsibility for the socialization/care of children, which is the alternative- not a very attractive one)
So to afford the same legal constructs, rights, benefits and legitimacy of marriage to same sex unions would diminish the ability of society/government to discourage same sex unions, and at the same time facilitate the conception and socialization of children outside of the traditional marriage/family unit , which would be to the detriment of society as a whole.
The primary purpose of marriage is to ensure that children have a mother and a father, they are protected and socialized by that mother and father , and the values are passed on to the next generation.
The rights same sex unions seek are already available, without the redefinition of marriage, such as hospital visitation, transfer of property , etc. “
.Nothing in current law prevents homosexual partners from being joint owners of property such as a home or a car, in which case the survivor would automatically become the owner if the partner dies. An individual may leave the remainder of his estate to whomever he wishes, without regard to sexual orientation or marital status, with a simple will. Entire estates have been left to trees, cats and other peculiar survivors. If a homosexual cannot receive his or her partner’s estate, more than likely, it is because the deceased partner failed to write a will and make necessary legal arrangements.
In the end it is clear that the fight for marriage is less about “gaining rights and responsibilities,” and more about gaining a public stamp of approval for the homosexual lifestyle. That is the true goal, and homosexual activists should own up to that fact.
Sociologist Kingsley Davis has stated that in no time in history with the possible exception of Imperial Rome, has the state of marriage been more problematic than it is today. According to Edward Gibbon in his classic work, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” Rome fell for several reasons, two of which were the rapid increase in divorce and the undermining of dignity and sanctity of the home.arrangements.”(http://www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Apr04/Art_Apr04_oped1.html)
“But, I don’t really understand the opposition to gay marriage - it’s not like the state is trying to force churches to recognize them.”
That is where you err.
First - the state recognizes gay marriage, and also passes anti-discriminatory laws.
Then - when these people are considered legally married - and they are denied marriage ceremonies in the churches - the churches are open to lawsuits.
The churches are open to lawsuits for reading from the letters of Paul and presenting it as valid teaching.
Church sponsored adoptions that only arrange adoption for traditionally married men & women - shut down for discrimination.
Any church related group/organization -that refuse to accomodate the new “definition” of marriage are sued or shut down.
I could live with gay marriage, but the problem for me is that once the traditional definition of marriage is changed, it opens up the door to things that are extremely bad for civilization: incestuous marriage, group marriage, child marriage, etc.
Without a black-letter understanding that there are no further “frontiers” in marriage, I can’t support any change in marriage laws. Religion has nothing to do with it.
you don’t get it about them
well first off they are trying to get the state to recognise their pervertedness.
think about it, do you really think it is normal for two men ton be sleeping and having sex and what they do
now
they also want to be recognised about marriage, then it leads to adoption then it leads to teaching it in schools
do you think it is right that kids aged 5 should be reading books about a boy meeting a boy and falling in love then getting married
that is what happens in MA, to them it is not about rights it is forcing their perverted sexual minds onto others
look how many act , look their their freak parades
If you still do not get it then I would assume you are young and have been brought and brainwashed with this or you know people who are homosexuals openly and they tell you that they just want to be happy
if the latter then that is what they do so folks like you think ah well so what no biggie
if they went back into their bedrooms and stopped going on about their sexual pervertedness then all this would not be an issue and no one would be bothered about them but right now they are out in the open letting everyone know about their views and agenda
also they want this kind of marriage to be legal well should we let men have 4 wives, should be let a woman marry her daughter
hey remember it is in their home, it is their privacy, it is their right they love each other
you see where does it stop, every argument used by these homosexuals will and can be used for other weird marriages
My thoughts, to be gentle, is that as a professed Christian you need to go back and study basic Bible doctrine. GOD Himself created the institution of marriage and made it explicitly clear that it is to be between a man and a woman. If society is not going to go by GOD's absolute truth definition of marriage, then society alternatively must by definition embrace moral relativity that says that anything goes because all ways are equally right and there is no wrong, so you can have man and man, woman and woman, man and dog, woman and cat, man-woman-man, woman-man-woman, ad infinitum.
Genesis 2:18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs [i] and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman, for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame....
Another fraud on the ballot this year is gay “marriage.”
Marriage has existed for centuries and, until recent times, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman. Over those centuries, a vast array of laws has grown up, all based on circumstances that arise in unions between a man and a woman.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that law has not been based on logic but on experience. To apply a mountain of laws based specifically on experience with relations between a man and a woman to a different relationship where sex differences are not involved would be like applying the rules of baseball to football.
The argument that current marriage laws “discriminate” against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior.
All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior. What other purpose does law have?
While people may be treated the same, all their behaviors are not. Laws that forbid bicycles from being ridden on freeways obviously have a different effect on people who have bicycles but no cars.
But this is not discrimination against a person. The cyclist who gets into a car is just as free to drive on the freeway as anybody else.
The question is not whether gays should be permitted to marry. Many gays have already married people of the opposite sex. Conversely, heterosexuals who might want to marry someone of the same sex in order to make some point will be forbidden to do so, just as gays are.
The real issue is whether marriage should be redefined — and, if for gays, why not for polygamists? Why not for pedophiles?
Despite heavy television advertising in California for “gay marriage,” showing blacks being set upon by police dogs during civil-rights marches, and implying that homosexuals face the same discrimination today, the analogy is completely false.
Blacks had to sit in the back of the bus because they were black. They were doing exactly what white people were doing — riding a bus. That is what made it racial discrimination.
Marriage is not a right but a set of legal obligations imposed because the government has a vested interest in unions that, among other things, have the potential to produce children, which is to say, the future population of the nation.
Gays were on their strongest ground when they said that what they did was nobody else's business. Now they are asserting a right to other people's approval, which is wholly different.
None of us has a right to other people's approval.
And last, but not least, as Catholics (you and I), we're obligated to understand our faith. The Catholic Church is very clear on the fact that there are several non-negotiables which we must not support; abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell result, euthanasia (and I can't remember the last one).
Go to any orthodox Catholic website and you can find more info. A good forum is Catholic Forums.
What does the Catholic church classify the behavior of sodomy???? And based on that classification, is your duty as a Catholic to encourage it????? If you can ignore that requirement, then I can ignore the Christian commandment of thou shall not steal, thou shall not murder and obtain worldly possessions thru crime. But I am still a good Catholic because I abide by all the other tenents of the faith!!!!
“it’s not like the state is trying to force churches to recognize them”
Wrong. The homos will demand your approval. and the right to get married in any church, no matter what.