a thought on marriage

[theculturewarrior]

I'm not sure where I stand on the question of same-sex unions and homosexual marriages, other than that I defer to the Church. Perhaps that sounds like a whopper...let me explain.

We have several political entities seeking what their opponents call a "redefinition of marriage." My question is, is it within the power of the government to redefine marriage, and if so, where is the fuss about artificial birth control?

It seems to me that marriage is an ecclesiastical thing, to be defined by the Church. If it is in the governments hand...well, then marriage has already been redifined. As soon as marriage came to mean a sterile or semi-sterile sexual union, the door was open to any and every antichristian fallacy.

But that's not the definition of marriage. We all know that marriage is something prolific, so what does the government have to do with it? Of course, it could be that the Church has deemed governments have that responsibility. Can somebody provide sources on this? Regardless, the outcry should start with artificial birth control.

God bless,

TCW

[Dreamweaver]

Something that I've pondered regarding constitutional amendments defining marriage... Marriage itself is not in the consitution. Therefore, the "right to marry" isn't even something the government needs to provide.

If I were dictat...I mean, President of the US, I'd do away with marriage benefits for all couples. After all, marriage is pure a religious thing, yes? God didn't give Adam and Eve tax breaks.

[popestpiusx]

Actually folks, Marriage is not an ecclesiatical thing or a religioius thing. It is primarily a natural law institution, which means that even the Church can't re-define it.

Christ raised it to the level of a sacrament for the baptized. The Church governs and protects the sacrament, but cannot change it.

Edited November 19, 2004 by popestpiusx

[cmotherofpirl]

Marriage was created by God in Genesis. It was made a Sacrament by Christ.

Gen 2:24: Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.

[Socrates]

Of course, you're right about contraception, etc.,
But this isn't about gov't redefining anything. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It's just defining what has always been there, and preventing it from being changed by the gay-rights crowd. Don't get lost in the enemy's rhetoric.

[Guest JeffCR07]

TCW, I think that in the discussion of the gay-marriage question, we may not be considering a critical aspect of our call as christians. We are not called to simply stand by and allow our brothers and sisters to fall into corruption. We are, truly, "Our Brother's Keeper" as the Life of Christ responds to Abel's Old Testament question. As such, we must do everything within our power to keep others from falling into sin.

Part of that calling is the obligation that we have to do absolutely nothing that would ever condone or encourage sin.

As citizens in a democratic republic, it is within our power to effect social change and enact legislation, for good or for worse. Projecting our christian obligation upon our social privelage, we see that it is within our power to [i]not[/i] legislate in a way that would promote sin, and, as such, this is our calling.

It is clear that civil unions and gay marriage will condone, encourage, and legitimize the practice of homosexual relations - a thing that we know to be gravely disordered and a mortal sin.

As such, we can do no other than oppose the legalization of such a thing, and, if it is made legal, work to repeal such a law.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[Balthazor]

Ok I feel like weighing in with my two cents.

I do not support gay marriage.... mostly because I see marriage as a sacrament.
Here in the church it would be immpossible to have two people of the same sex get married because God gave us marriage as a joining of two people a man and a woman, we do not marry people together God does. So if marriage is not an instittumiton that man made up but instead God gave us then.... we can't change the rules. We have no authority as men to change marriage to accomodate homosexuality.

However one has to look at the other implications of marriage namely as economic, and political unions as well as an expression of culture and social right, these perhaps should not be the focus of marriage but in our society and nearly every other society it is an important part of a civilization.

It is usually upon the economic and political, and social claims that gay rights activists are petioning for their rights. They ususally use the ever popular sob story that they just want to be able to see their partner in the hospital in the case of illness, in other words visitation rights...and other benign pleas.

However few of them ever tell of the pandora's box that will be opened if gay marriage and even civil unions with rights on par to marriage are implemented.

They would have to get the same tax status as a heterosexual couple, I have a problem with this. Any tax benefits that married couples get are designed to encourage family, to encourage children. Homosexual marriages do not encourage children, they might by some chance have children, or adopt children, but in general homosexual unions are not reproductive in nature. That is one major reason why Gay couples should not get these benefits, their union can never be of the same nature are a heterosexual marriage, and should not be treated as such.

Also insurence would be affected. This means that an insurance provider would have to give the same status and same rights, and same deals to homosexual marriages as they do to heterosexual marriages. It makes some sense here, people in a committed relationship are in general less likley to do something stupid and get themselves killed or injured. But that is really where it stops.
The problem here is that many people get their insurence through their place of employment.... so what happens if you work for a Catholic company? Well if you are you are a married homosexual you get the same benefits are a married heterosexual, hmmm.... that would make me kinda cranky if I was the insurence company or the Catholic workplace. I would feel like I was asked to condone an action that is forbidden by my religion.

Adoption rights are also an issue. If gay marriage is legalized and given equal rights as hetero marriage then do we give equal rights in adoption too?

These are just a few issue that would arise, then we could talk all day about the abscence of gay marriage as economic and polititcal unions in almost every culture throughout the world. There is no historical basis for it either.
There are so many issues that would arise that is makes my head spin....even our social security system and any other entitlements provided by the government would probably have to be adjusted.....

The few benign and grantable rights that we can give homosexual couples are simply not worth sacrificing the rights of heterosexual marriage. To grant equality to civil unions and legalize homosexual marriage would be to insult the existing institution of marriage as we know it, not to mention insult the Creator and inventor of the sacrament Himself.

Peace out,
Balthazor

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Balthazor' date='Nov 19 2004, 03:52 PM'] Ok I feel like weighing in with my two cents.

I do not support gay marriage.... mostly because I see marriage as a sacrament.
Here in the church it would be immpossible to have two people of the same sex get married because God gave us marriage as a joining of two people a man and a woman, we do not marry people together God does. So if marriage is not an instittumiton that man made up but instead God gave us then.... we can't change the rules. We have no authority as men to change marriage to accomodate homosexuality. [/quote]

Not approving because you see it as a sacrament is one thing, but submitting social issues that don't exist is another...or rather, acting as though social issues are the real problem.

[quote]It is usually upon the economic and political, and social claims that gay rights activists are petioning for their rights. They ususally use the ever popular sob story that they just want to be able to see their partner in the hospital in the case of illness, in other words visitation rights...and other benign pleas. [/quote]

Call it a sob story if you wish, but it is a legitimate concern. It's even a legitimate concern for heterosexual unmarried couples.

[quote]However few of them ever tell of the pandora's box that will be opened if gay marriage and even civil unions with rights on par to marriage are implemented.

They would have to get the same tax status as a heterosexual couple, I have a problem with this. Any tax benefits that married couples get are designed to encourage family, to encourage children. Homosexual marriages do not encourage children, they might by some chance have children, or adopt children, but in general homosexual unions are not reproductive in nature. That is one major reason why Gay couples should not get these benefits, their union can never be of the same nature are a heterosexual marriage, and should not be treated as such.[/quote]

Tax benefits that are for children are specifically labelled for children. Even unmarried people with children get these benefits. Additionally, married couples that don't have children get all the same benefits of married couples who don't have children but intend to. If marriage were only for children the elderly, the sterile, and the childfree would not be allowed to get married. This argument doesn't hold up. As a childfree person I find this argument particularly offensive.

[quote]Also insurence would be affected. This means that an insurance provider would have to give the same status and same rights, and same deals to homosexual marriages as they do to heterosexual marriages. It makes some sense here, people in a committed relationship are in general less likley to do something stupid and get themselves killed or injured. But that is really where it stops. [/quote]

Currently, I could get insurance benefits from my SO's workplace under 'domestic partner' program. There is no logical reason not to extend the benefits.

[quote]The problem here is that many people get their insurence through their place of employment.... so what happens if you work for a Catholic company? Well if you are you are a married homosexual you get the same benefits are a married heterosexual, hmmm.... that would make me kinda cranky if I was the insurence company or the Catholic workplace. I would feel like I was asked to condone an action that is forbidden by my religion.[/quote]

A Catholic company like a hospital? Catholic hospitals can refuse certain treatments such as emergency contraceptives. I guarantee that under the protection of the 1st Amendment (yes, it goes both ways) and/or state laws Catholic companies could chose insurance policies that follow their beliefs.


[quote]Adoption rights are also an issue. If gay marriage is legalized and given equal rights as hetero marriage then do we give equal rights in adoption too?[/quote]

In much the same way that most companies do now.

[quote]These are just a few issue that would arise, then we could talk all day about the abscence of gay marriage as  economic and polititcal unions in almost every culture throughout the world. There is no historical basis for it either.
There are so many issues that would arise that is makes my head spin....even our social security system and any other entitlements provided by the government would probably have to be adjusted.....[/quote]

Just because there is no historical basis for something does not make it invalid. There was no historical basis for allowing women to vote and yet...
The government would not have to do much adjusting as far as social security -- it's the same system and it's still just joining two names. The fact that both names are male or female won't cause that much havok.

[quote]The few benign and grantable rights that we can give homosexual couples are simply not worth sacrificing the rights of heterosexual marriage.[/quote]

There is no basis in reality for this statement. There is absolutely no proof, much less an implication thereof, that heterosexual couples would have to give up ANY rights in order for homosexual couples to be allowed to marry. This is absurd.

[quote]To grant equality to civil unions and legalize homosexual marriage would be to insult the existing institution of marriage as we know it, not to mention insult the Creator and inventor of the sacrament Himself.[/quote]

An insult to the existing institution how, exactly? In the way that divorce is? In the way that cheating is? Please.

Edited November 19, 2004 by burnsspivey

[Balthazor]

So what are your thoughts on Homosexual Marriage? I would love to hear you point of view.

[Balthazor]

Why Should Homosexual Marriage be legalized and given the same standing as Heterosexual marriage?

[Mary's Knight, La]

Just to summarize for TCW

Marriage is part of natural law, institutional law is subordinate to natural law. therefore while it is fitting for institutional law to enforce natural law, it does not take control over the issue it just serves as an enhancement to natural law.

for burnsspivey:

as for unmarried hetero couples having the same concerns... I'm assuming you mean those living together, and they would be the same issue. Marriage cannot exist between two people of the same sex and it doesn't exist when a hetero couple aren't infact married.

while balthazor mentions children alot the true issue is the idea of family, which is a part of natural law. the tax breaks are designed to encourage families. While a single parent can provide a somewhat injured version of a family, when both parents are of the same gender it takes the idea of family and warps it into something unnatural.

the domestic partner programs have as their basis the idea of family they were originally meant to simply provide benefits for whoever the worker shacked up with. but instead to help the worker take care of his or her family. it is due to legal activity that seeked to extend these benefits for purposes they were not intended for, that the company has a domestic partner program rather than a spouse or family program.

as far as insurance paying for immoral things, Catholic charities could not offer their employees a program that didn't pay for things like contraception. their choice was the insurance must offer all the standard things or they must not offer insurance.

the purpose of adoption is to place the child in a stable family, again same sex couples cannot provide family.

[Socrates]

Thought I'd repeat here what I posted in another thread (in response to people calling for "gay marriage"):

If "gay marriages" are "what America was made for," then why have they not been recognized in this country for over 200 years???

Legal marriage bestows certain legal and tax benefits on married couples, and is a legal recognition of what is a foundation of all civilized society, the family (man, woman and their children). This is not what a "gay union" is, and sodomy deserves no such legal recognition, which mocks and cheapens the dignity of real marriage.

If legal marriage is to be based on the hedonistic principle of people just doing whatever they like ("If it feels good, do it!"), then why stop with "gay marriage"?
Why shouldn't someone be able to legally "marry" his or her son or daughter?
A barnyard animal?
A blow-up doll?

Sorry if I've offended anybody, but this point gets to the root of the issue, I think.
Hey, legal rights for everybody! Who am I to impose my morality?

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Balthazor' date='Nov 19 2004, 06:00 PM'] Why Should Homosexual Marriage be legalized and given the same standing as Heterosexual marriage? [/quote]
1) Because the laws of this country are secular in nature.
2) Because we have a clause in our Constitution that gives everyone equal rights.

For the record, I agree with an earlier post's conclusion that marriage should be removed from the publid sphere. There should be no such thing as legal marriage. However, if we are going to have it it should apply across the board.

[cmotherofpirl]

It is across the board, within certain parameters, most men are able to marry most women.

[Quietfire]

[quote]emergency contraceptives[/quote]

What could you possibly define as an 'emergency contraceptive'. A butcher knife and a hoover vaccum?

Oh wait, thats an abortion.