What Do You Think Of These Reasons Why Ssm Affects Marriage?

[arfink]

http://theaquilareport.com/ten-reasons-why-same-sex-marriage-affects-your-marriage/

 

I have found this, and have not quite considered them very closely yet. Do you think the reasons being listed in there seem reasonable? Do they seem Catholic? Here are summaries of the 10 reasons (I will not post the whole article)

 

1. Same-sex marriage reduces the worth of your marriage

2.  Your marriage will be forced to abide by the social strictures of same-sex marriage

3.  The rights of spouses to dissent same-sex marriage will be infringed

4. Same-sex marriage will absorb your marriage into a new view of reality

5.  Same-sex marriage makes the concepts of husband and wife irrelevant in your marriage

6.  Same-sex marriage will obfuscate the state’s interests in your marriage

7.  Same-sex marriage defeats the purpose of the state’s interest in benefiting your marriage

8. Same-sex marriage challenges the nature of your marriage

9.  The redistribution of marriage rights modifies your marriage as a natural entity afforded legal recognition

10.  The legal legitimization of same-sex marriage affects your status as a father or a mother

 

[Basilisa Marie]

1. Same-sex marriage reduces the worth of your marriage - No, becase the worth of a marriage is not dependent on someone else's. 

2.  Your marriage will be forced to abide by the social strictures of same-sex marriage - No, because my marriage means something different. 

3.  The rights of spouses to dissent same-sex marriage will be infringed - Possibly, but unlikely thus far. 

4. Same-sex marriage will absorb your marriage into a new view of reality - Divorce is already legal and common. That doesn't change the reality of Catholic marriage. 

5.  Same-sex marriage makes the concepts of husband and wife irrelevant in your marriage - The state doesn't define what a husband and wife mean in my religion. 

6.  Same-sex marriage will obfuscate the state’s interests in your marriage - The state is only interested in marriage for tax reasons, and Catholic marriage is more than taxes. 

7.  Same-sex marriage defeats the purpose of the state’s interest in benefiting your marriage - If anything it expands the state's interests in marriage in general.

8. Same-sex marriage challenges the nature of your marriage - The common practice of civil divorce already challenges the "nature" of marriage, and the challenge doesn't seem to have changed what Catholics mean by marriage. 

9.  The redistribution of marriage rights modifies your marriage as a natural entity afforded legal recognition - It depends on what we mean by "natural entity," but being a "natural entity" doesn't matter in the eyes of the state. It just adds more people to the marriage pool. 

10.  The legal legitimization of same-sex marriage affects your status as a father or a mother - Nope, it just means that in some cases other people are included in the definition. What about single parents? Grandparents who raise grandchildren? 

 

The only marginally compelling objection is number 3.  The rest imply that the state has some power over defining what my religion believes to be true, which is nonsense. Divorce and single parents are already ubiquitous in society, so the Church ALREADY has a different definition of marriage than society does.  You can get divorce without good reason, you can have sex outside marriage, you can have sex without having children, you can have children outside marriage...really, it's hard for me to see how adding legal gay marriage actually does any more significant damage to marriage and family than what's already been done. This ship has already sailed decades ago, we just get to add yet another thing to the list of reasons why Catholic marriage is different than society's marriage. 

[arfink]

^^ That is kinda what I was thinking. I just have some friends slinging the article around and wanted to get it checked out.

[T-fish]

The only thing it does is gives Catholics more reason to defend God's Laws. Who cares about man's laws?

 

The Church has wasted soooooooooooo much time on divorce and abortion, that they didn't stop this homosexual marriage stuff.

 

It has done more damage to children than anything. So cheers to having more children gender and sexually confused.

 

Birth control, abuse (physical and mental), and adultery are the real sins against marriage. How many Catholic couples are sinless?

 

 

[ToJesusMyHeart]

The Church has wasted soooooooooooo much time on divorce and abortion, that they didn't stop this homosexual marriage stuff.

 

It has done more damage to children than anything. So cheers to having more children gender and sexually confused.

False. Abortion does far more damage to children because it rips their arms and legs from their bodies and kills them.

[T-fish]

False. Abortion does far more damage to children because it rips their arms and legs from their bodies and kills them.

Torment of a soul is much worse. 

Holy Innocents.

To ignore children that are born is much worse.

[jeffboom]

What other people do regarding marriage doesn't affect you. And if you think it takes from the sanctity of your marriage, it doesn't. Spend less time worrying about what other people are doing. 

[Gabriela]

One of my professors (a Christian) mentioned in class the other day that homosexuals already have a way to unite before the state: civil union. (At least, in some states.) "Marriage" implies (or at least, used to and ought to imply) a union before God. Thus, from a Christian perspective, to apply "marriage" to a homosexual union is to change the meaning of that word.

 

But, as Basilisa points out, the meaning of that word changed ages ago. So...

 

My concern about homosexual marriage becoming recognized by the state is that the state will then declare a right to demand all churches recognize and perform homosexual "marriages". Which is just flat-out NOT its right.

 

I read an ethicist make an argument once that allowing homosexuals to "marry" would actually be good for society: Right now, their lack of perpetual vows to their partners makes it easy for them to split up. Introducing homosexual "marriage" would render them subject to the same "rules" as heterosexual married couples, i.e., "You said FOREVER, dude..." The ethicist foresaw less promiscuity, improved family orientation, etc., throughout society as a result.

 

I don't buy this, because divorce is so cheap and easy these days.

 

IMO, so long as the state does not seize the right to force churches to recognize/perform gay "marriages", then allowing homosexual unions (whatever you call them) would be way less damaging to marriage than the proliferation of divorce has been. Divorce has been the downfall of our society. All relationships are cheapened and weakened when families can't even stay together.

 

Still, I would prefer that homosexual unions be limited to "civil unions", since I think it only sensible to acknowledge that God does not recognize such unions, and "marriage" is a religious concept.

 

I am for "civil unions" of homosexuals, btw—not that I'd promote them, but I do think it only fair that homosexuals have access to the health care and tax benefits of heterosexual couples. Better yet: How about we just remove the government from our relationships entirely and leave "unions" of every sort to the Church, like it ought to be?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

 

My concern about homosexual marriage becoming recognized by the state is that the state will then declare a right to demand all churches recognize and perform homosexual "marriages". Which is just flat-out NOT its right.

I honestly can't see that happening. The state is careful not to mess with the beliefs of religious groups. Religious beliefs are still considered sacred in this country. We even let the Native American Church smoke peyote. 

 

 

I read an ethicist make an argument once that allowing homosexuals to "marry" would actually be good for society: Right now, their lack of perpetual vows to their partners makes it easy for them to split up. Introducing homosexual "marriage" would render them subject to the same "rules" as heterosexual married couples, i.e., "You said FOREVER, dude..." The ethicist foresaw less promiscuity, improved family orientation, etc., throughout society as a result.

 

I don't buy this, because divorce is so cheap and easy these days.

 

I see his point but I agree with you. There aren't nearly enough gay people to make that large of an impact. 

 

 

 

IMO, so long as the state does not seize the right to force churches to recognize/perform gay "marriages", then allowing homosexual unions (whatever you call them) would be way less damaging to marriage than the proliferation of divorce has been. Divorce has been the downfall of our society. All relationships are cheapened and weakened when families can't even stay together.

 

Divorce has been bad, but I don't think the problems are necessarily stemming from divorce. I'm glad we've become more open about divorce. It's allowed people to leave abusive relationships without feeling judged by society as a result. The main problem, imo, is that people are going into relationships without a knowledge of who they are and what they want. Some people aren't ready for marriage. They need to acquire a good amount of self control and maturity before they make that commitment. Religion can help that. I think some of what the religious believe can also lead to some of the problems, though. 

 

Still, I would prefer that homosexual unions be limited to "civil unions", since I think it only sensible to acknowledge that God does not recognize such unions, and "marriage" is a religious concept.

 

I am for "civil unions" of homosexuals, btw—not that I'd promote them, but I do think it only fair that homosexuals have access to the health care and tax benefits of heterosexual couples. Better yet: How about we just remove the government from our relationships entirely and leave "unions" of every sort to the Church, like it ought to be?

 

I totally agree. The government has no business in this. 

[Gabriela]

I honestly can't see that happening. The state is careful not to mess with the beliefs of religious groups. Religious beliefs are still considered sacred in this country. We even let the Native American Church smoke peyote. 

 

Uhhh... HHS Mandate?

 

As for people entering marriage without sufficient self-knowledge and maturity: I totally agree. That's a huge part of the problem. But if they stayed in their marriages, they could grow and mature together. That's what marriage is for!

 

As for abuse in marriages... yeah, that's a problem. I can see divorce warranted in those cases.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Uhhh... HHS Mandate?

True. I would argue that the government shouldn't be involved in anything that would allow them to do this either. 

[Basilisa Marie]

The problem with civil unions is that many states they don't actually have the same rights as marriages, which is the big reason why gay rights advocates have pushed for marriage. 

 

 

 

[PhuturePriest]

Anyone who argues that the State isn't meddling with the beliefs of religion should open their eyes a little bit. To stay on the topic of same-sex marriage, if it becomes legal, it will only be a matter of time before the Church is being sued and scolded for not marrying same-sex couples. How do I know this? Because it's already happening in States where it is legal.

 

So, does same-sex marriage affect the Church? Yes, it does. The Church is going to be sued out of its mind, Priests will cave and perform same-sex ceremonies (Like some are already doing), and we'll have yet another legal and spiritual battle to fight.

Edited May 5, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[TheLordsSouljah]

Torment of a soul is much worse. 

Holy Innocents.

To ignore children that are born is much worse.

You have a point... Was only thinking..... but does that mean you'd rather have your limbs sheared off, your neck severed and brain sucked out with a vacuum?

You might as well bring back hanging, drawing and quartering. 

Sorry for the graphics, but it's true.

[Basilisa Marie]

Anyone who argues that the State isn't meddling with the beliefs of religion should open their eyes a little bit. To stay on the topic of same-sex marriage, if it becomes legal, it will only be a matter of time before the Church is being sued and scolded for not marrying same-sex couples. How do I know this? Because it's already happening in States where it is legal.

 

So, does same-sex marriage affect the Church? Yes, it does. The Church is going to be sued out of its mind, Priests will cave and perform same-sex ceremonies (Like some are already doing), and we'll have yet another legal and spiritual battle to fight.

 

And anyone who argues that the Church is most certainly going to be persecuted in such a way has a bit of a martyr complex.   :)

 

The Church can't be sued for not performing same-sex marriages.  Our Supreme Court has an incredibly loose interpretation of the first amendment, as seen in any number of cases under the Roberts Court.  I can provide links if you want. :) 

 

We may have more legal battles to fight (and have always had spiritual battles), but I think acting as if it's a foregone conclusion isn't helpful.  

Edited May 5, 2013 by Basilisa Marie