New York Legalises Same-Sex Marriage

[dUSt]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1309163725' post='2259024']
What will happen if gay marriage is legalized?
[/quote]
Well, besides destroying the definition of marriage, which will lead to a more lackadaisical view of marriage (see birth control leading to more lackadaisical view of parenting) , which will lead to higher divorce rates, single parent homes, and ultimately the destruction of society as we know it... you know, besides all that minor stuff... This could lead to it being against the law to teach that homosexual marriage is wrong, causing the church to commit a crime for teaching a universal truth that existed since the beginning of time as we know it, making all our priests and CCD teachers criminals.

[Nihil Obstat]

It's also quite possible that priests will be hit with discrimination suits for refusing homosexual 'marriages' in their churches. Potentially the Church losing tax-exempt status, etc.. Maybe not right away, but I do think it's coming. It's closer in Canada- we've already seen Christians forced to defend themselves against 'hatespeech' for stating that homosexuality is morally wrong.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1309216387' post='2259249']
It's also quite possible that priests will be hit with discrimination suits for refusing homosexual 'marriages' in their churches. Potentially the Church losing tax-exempt status, etc.. Maybe not right away, but I do think it's coming. It's closer in Canada- we've already seen Christians forced to defend themselves against 'hatespeech' for stating that homosexuality is morally wrong.
[/quote]
I had heard talk of putting something in that would exempt people from performing the "marriages" because of religion, but I don't know if that was included in the end. Does anybody know if it was or not?

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1309164480' post='2259025']
what is hardly fair is the vast hypocrisy when people crow about this. It does not matter.

if the people in a state voted to allow abortion, would that make it ok? wouldnt you laud the government for ignoring those voters and doing what you think is right regardless?

If a state such as alabama(no offense to my friends from this state) were to have enacted laws against racism, allowing interracial marriage, desegregation etc in the 50s and 60s, wouldnt that still be the right thing to have done, even if the populace was outspokenly(and violently) against this at the time?

I dont particularily care for your reasoning behind your moral convictions, but mindlessly putting this point forward as a viable argument, while ignoring it when that same point would win against other convictions you hold is hypocritical.

"It isnt right to do something the people vote against. i mean unless the people are obviously voting wrong" does not work. any idiot could easily apply the same principles to hold up legalization of abortion as the right thing to do.
[/quote]

Yeah, flaws in logic are like soooo annoying. I'm personally not a fan of the ad hominem, relativist, poisoning the well, questionable cause, or red herring fallacies.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1309126045' post='2258920']
The Senator in my area goes to my Church and was initially undecided, although he did end up voting against it as he had promised earlier. He was certainly getting calls from other parishoners lol. It's sad that this happened in my state, especially since Central NY and Upstate is nowhere near as liberal as the city is. Although I can't say that I didn't see it coming.
[/quote]


Yup. Whenever something like this comes up the only reason why it gets passed in NYS is because of NYC. (I'm a North Country native.)

I read an article that one senator (can't remember who it was now) was being bombarded on facebook by demands to pass the law, but a survey showed that over 60% of those people were not even from NYS, and that well over 60% of people in his district were opposed. People shouldn't have a say on laws getting passed in states in which they do not reside.

[katholikkid]

Ron Paul, when asked about same sex marriage vs. civil unions, replied "Let them call it whatever they want."
The reality is homosexual couples exist and they want benefits for their contributions to society. Not a terribly far fetched request. Perhaps when it comes to such social matters where the outcome is more or less an official recognition of something rather than a harmful action i.e. abortion, war etc. the Church should just concentrate on marriage within its own parameters. I understand the worries that people have about having to perform services or cater to people who are in such a union but I think that is an unnecessary fear. If the day should come that a government forces a person or organization to do something against his conscience there are bigger things to worry over. From what I gather the Marriage Equality Bill was not an if but when situation anyway. The matter at hand is the catholic politicians who voted for it. Their argument is that they are catholic and although they may not believe in same sex marriage that they are not there for themselves but their constituents who are not all catholic or even christian for that matter. I like to look at that in reverse, the state I am from has many gay men and lesbians in the government but there does not seem to be a huge push for anything phenomenal when it comes to homosexuality and perhaps those politicians use the same thought process that it is not about them or their beliefs but the people they represent. The next question is where they elected simply because they were catholic? If the answer is yes then they may have some 'splainin' to do. I don't think this is as huge as a shake up as it is being touted. Many European countries have civil unions and a few have same sex marriage. I sometimes look at the Anglicans for a model. When I was in England I visited an Anglican Church for Evensong and there were it seemed a homosexual couple but there was reverence in the service and it was very traditional. So for a church that is so 'progressive' it seemed to posses many traditional elements and in fact from my experience in general it could be described as an institution that is liturgically traditional and theologically progressive. Now getting back to good old Roma. I doubt this will be as big an issue since it will most likely become standard in many states and children born now will never have existed without the idea of same sex marriage existing in some capacity. Thus the church must amp up its doctrines and really scrutinize and make sure people understand what true marriage is. Thankfully our previous pope left us some great material for our era 'Theology of the Body' and we must start from there. Also the Church should take a more open 'we don't mind discussing this' stance on the matter. I feel it is only ever discussed when the politicians are discussing it which is not good. The Church is going to do great as it always has. We have people with wisdom being guided by the Holy Ghost so we can't go wrong. In some ways it is probably good that this is becoming such a discussed topic. Perhaps the lay faithful in the Church are moving more towards a place where dialogue with faithful homosexual Catholics can take place and we can know better the struggles of our brothers and sisters in an open communal way. Keep strong in the faith.

Edited June 28, 2011 by katholikkid

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='katholikkid' timestamp='1309221385' post='2259270']
I understand the worries that people have about having to perform services or cater to people who are in such a union but I think that is [b]an unnecessary fear.[/b] If the day should come that a government forces a person or organization to do something against his conscience there are bigger things to worry over.
[/quote]

You are infinitely more optimistic about this country than I am.

Pretty sure we're already seeing the beginning of the government forcing persons or an organization to do things against their conscience.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' timestamp='1309221625' post='2259272']
Pretty sure we're already seeing the beginning of the government forcing persons or an organization to do things against their conscience.
[/quote]
Oh I think you're long past that. It's getting more blatant now.

[Ice_nine]

The world is messed up. What's another nail in the coffin?

I know I should be all about rebuilding society and bringing justice to the world, but I can't help this overwhelming pessimism that as a society we are on our last leg. If you cut a leaf off of a tree it will stay green for a little while, maybe even turn a pretty red or orange if we're in the Fall, but it can't survive and soon it will turn brittle and lifeless. In the same way we've been able to divorce our ethos from the principles that gave them life in the first place, all these ideas of freedom and a just society, and keep them on life support for a bit. Every civilization has to come to an end right? But hey cheer up kid the wild, wild West gave it a good run.

I don't think gay marriage is signaling the end of civilization as we know it. I wouldn't give it that much credit. It's just another gasp or air before the pathetic animal quits out for good.

With this much pessimism it's hard to be surprised at stuff like this!

Edited June 28, 2011 by Ice_nine

[Lil Red]

What is a good, short, snippet of a rebuttal against same-sex marriage? Most people don't want a two hour long spiel, but a short snippet of why you are against same-sex marriage.

[katholikkid]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1309223214' post='2259286']
What is a good, short, snippet of a rebuttal against same-sex marriage? Most people don't want a two hour long spiel, but a short snippet of why you are against same-sex marriage.
[/quote]

Against it because it is never an ideal situation when you equate two things that are not equitable. Even worse treat them interchangeably. In my mind gay marriage cannot exist; it is not marriage just because a state says so hence my ron paul quote. I am ok with the idea of civil unions for hetero and homosexual couples who don't want the sacrament. France has such a system you can choose church marriage or state union. Separation between church and state is a good thing. Even if the USA passed a federal law on same sex marriage it should not shatter the theology of marriage for any catholic. Its basically the state using the name of a sacrament just as if they decided to call inaugurations ordinations; same name not at all the same matter.

Edited June 28, 2011 by katholikkid

[Lil Red]

[quote name='katholikkid' timestamp='1309223963' post='2259303']
Against it because it is never an ideal situation when you equate two things that are not equitable. Even worse treat them interchangeably. In my mind gay marriage cannot exist it is not marriage just because a state says so hence my ron paul quote. I am ok with the idea of civil unions for hetero and homosexual couples who don't want the sacrament. France has such a system you can choose church marriage or state union. Separation between church and state is a good thing. Even if the USA passed a federal law on same sex marriage it should not shatter the theology of marriage for any catholic. Its basically the state using the name of a sacrament just as if they decided to call inaugurations ordinations; same name not at all the same matter.
[/quote]
umm, sorry, i don't know if there is a language difference or something, but i cannot understand what you are talking about?

anyone else have something helpful to say?

[katholikkid]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1309224076' post='2259308']
umm, sorry, i don't know if there is a language difference or something, but i cannot understand what you are talking about?

anyone else have something helpful to say?
[/quote]


My short snippet for being against gay marriage is that it attempts to equate the two forms of marriage and they are not at all equitable or interchangeable. The rest of it I say why I feel civil unions are better than terming same sex unions as 'marriage'. I am saying in the end Catholics shouldn't worry because it doesn't matter what the government calls it, it is not truly marriage. Like Protestants calling their communal sharing of blessed bread "Eucharist". They are free to call it that but just because there is a majority feeling that it is the true Eucharist doesn't make it so. That is why I hate when people say 'marriage is under attack' ok maybe in a social-government sense but not in reality.

Edited June 28, 2011 by katholikkid

[jmjtina]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1309223214' post='2259286']
What is a good, short, snippet of a rebuttal against same-sex marriage? Most people don't want a two hour long spiel, but a short snippet of why you are against same-sex marriage.
[/quote]

I find it hard to get this in a nice 2 minute spill too. But I hope these help. I've actually been trying to come up with something relatively short and concise on it too. Other than reading as much as I can on it, the Church's stance, research, etc, and praying for inspiration from the Holy Spirit when discussing with it, I find the best way is just to read all you can, so your ready for anything.

[media]http://youtu.be/djPZ9q-F13E[/media]

[media]http://youtu.be/nA093eRcC10[/media]

[jmjtina]

And we need to be clear, the persecution has already started.

[url="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-sports-anchor-fired-over-true-marriage-tweet-now-taking-rogers-to"]Breaking: Sports anchor fired over true marriage tweet taking Rogers to human rights tribunal[/url]

Also:

[url="http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44234"]Football Star David Tyree, Gay Marriage, and Anarchy: A Super Bowl player comes under fire for his beliefs.[/url]