Should Homosexual Marriage Be Banned?

[Sinner]

TEXAS Nov 8 vote on Constitutional Amendment is just around the corner. My read on this is that your vote is a DUTY..... Your vote is not anti-homosexual... IT IS PRO-CHILDREN (ie PRO-LIFE), AND PRO-MARRIAGE.

From the Vatican: [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]Vatican Page[/url]
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH---CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

Excerpts:

Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues. It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children.

Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.

Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

[photosynthesis]

I'm not a Texan, but I would say no to gay "marriage."

[cmotherofpirl]

Since marriage is between a man and a woman there can be no such thing as a [i]gay [/i]marriage.

[Didacus]

I voted yes, but technically, it should be no. As C-Mom pointed out, it does not exist. Thus, we cannot ban something that does not exist.

However, we should put a ban on people who would pervert the institution of marriage, and if we have to call it a ban to homosexual marraige, so be it.

But then again, I'm canadien... We won the bronze in the moron's olympics by acknowledging gay marriage, so I might jsut be an idiot talking in the wind.

[Sojourner]

I think the state should get out of the business of defining marriage altogether.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Oct 23 2005, 10:51 AM']I think the state should get out of the business of defining marriage altogether.
[right][snapback]768106[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I agree with Abby. Marriage is a sacrament. Let the churches marry and let the government recognize the union. If someone doesn't want to have their union recognized before God, I have no opinion of what they do.

[Didacus]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 23 2005, 12:42 PM']I agree with Abby.  Marriage is a sacrament.  Let the churches marry and let the government recognize the union.  If someone doesn't want to have their union recognized before God, I have no opinion of what they do.
[right][snapback]768162[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I strongly disagree with that kind of apathetic statemnt. It concerns me greatly what my neighbor does because my children might take them as an example of something acceptable. I believe it is part of a goverment's duty to esure we live in an ethical and moral society, and certain behaviors should be condemned.

if homosexuality altogether is to be condemned, or just not recognizing gay marriage is up to debate, but I cannot stand aside - not anymore. (I used to, but when one has more than one's self to worry about, aka children, things can changed dramatically).

[Jaime]

I Yes the Govt gets involved with morality. But should they get involved with sacraments? I don't think so.

People will live together. Homosexuals will as well. Is this immoral? absolutely. But we are talking about Homosexual marriage, and by default, the concept of marriage. I'm saying that the government has no business in marriage.

Its not Apathy Didacus.

[Didacus]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 23 2005, 01:08 PM']I Yes the Govt gets involved with morality.  But should they get involved with sacraments?  I don't think so. 

People will live together.  Homosexuals will as well.  Is this immoral?  absolutely.  But we are talking about Homosexual marriage, and by default, the concept of marriage.  I'm saying that the government has no business in marriage. 

Its not Apathy Didacus.
[right][snapback]768184[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Then perhpas I misread into this:

[quote]If someone doesn't want to have their union recognized before God, I have no opinion of what they do. [/quote]

I apoplogize.



I would not say the goverment should not recongnize marriages at all. How could they ignore the founding institution of the nation? Marriage is the one institution that guarantees a nation's future, and you want the goverment to just turn away?


I would hesitate to say the goverment should start making statements to the effect that homosexuality is immoral in general (or on any other subject for that matter - its not their place), but I would fully oppose anything that gives rights or supports homosexuality (aka, legal gay marriage in Canada - what a joke!).

Hence i don't think the awnser is to get the goverment out of marriage, but to keep the goverment's affairs in marriage on a moral ground. They should support, encourage marriages, as well as protect the sanctity behind them by ensuring such things as gay marriage cannot attack it (just leave the defintion between man and woman alone for Pete's sake!).

Now I feel I am simply ranting, so I best stop it all here.

God bless...

[Jaime]

My point Didacus is this. When the government gets involved with that sanctity of marriage, it removes the sacredness of of it.

Obviously for legal reasons, the government needed to get involved. For example, without the Supreme Court, women did not have the right of property ownership. So if someone were to get married in the Church and have it recognized as binding by the government (as it is now) I'm fine with that. But for the government to say a justice of the peace can marry two people, I'm uncomfortable with that concept.

However since we have a country where people have the right not to believe in God, let them have a legally binding contract through a court. Marriage is a religious ceremony and (in my opinion) should not be secularized.

[Didacus]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 23 2005, 04:37 PM']My point Didacus is this.  When the government gets involved with that sanctity of marriage, it removes the sacredness of of it. 
[/quote]

Agreed. I do not believe the goverment should not interfere or dictate anything as far as the sacrament is involved. However the goverment should recongnize that a special (family type) bond has occured under law.




[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 23 2005, 04:37 PM']However since we have a country where people have the right not to believe in God, let them have a legally binding contract through a court. Marriage is a religious ceremony and (in my opinion) should not be secularized.
[right][snapback]768338[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

So am I. I recongnize that any individual can enter into contract as they please (legal requirements being met of course). Marriage should in no way be diminished; unfortunately, I am not one to talk with my fellow Canadiens legalizing gay-marriage.

Had they argued to legalized gay-unions, that would of been much easier to swallow, however, even then I would have strongly objected. Giving recongnition to such unions gives homosexuality support, and sets it as an acceptable lifestyle; this contradicts my personal belief that the goverment should make decisions that are ethical and moral in nature.

[Jaime]

I understand where you're coming from Didacus. I'm not that familiar with Canadian government. As far as the US government is concerned, while there are things that I certainly object to morally, I don't know if the government can. My objections are because I'm Catholic. The US is clearly not a Catholic state. I go back and forth on this quite often. On issues like civil unions, do I have the right to impose my Catholic beliefs on a system that is clearly not religious? Other issues like abortion, I don't consider Catholic but an issue of human rights and oppression.

Should homosexual couples be allowed to marry? No (Catholic belief)
Should homosexual couples be allowed civil unions? I don't know.

[Didacus]

This is quite a complex issue. I try to look at it from a big picture; what I call 'the sum of all wrongs'.

Spain, germany, Russia, all now have a birth rate of 1.3 or less (not 100% about Russia, but I know they're close). These countries are litterally depopulating themselves. The cause, a little wrong here, a little wrong therre, something that doesn't hurt here, something there. homosexuality doesn't hurt, euthanasia is simply a merciful way to end life, ect... and the result are entire nations, within 2 generations, will face such a cataclysmic depopulation that no other outcome will be in sight other than shear chaos and misery. Even China is recongnizing the pit it has put itself into and is trying to rethink its birth strategy - EVEN CHINA 1.3 billion strong know that if they stop making a new generation, the outlook is bleak.

The underlying cause of all this is the perception of human rights and morals. It is the perception that homosexuality, a childless union, is an acceptable option. It is the perception that one does not need to be open to life in order to participate in sexual acts, ect ect... I posted a link to an interesting article this morning that gave a pretty good picture of it all: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=37708&hl="]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=37708&hl=[/url]

or [url="http://www.zenit.org/english/"]http://www.zenit.org/english/[/url]
Click on 'decadent virtues' from the page that will pop-up. (and set aside my little lip-war with CoS aside of course)

When the goverment accepts civil unions between people of the same sex, this is one of those little wrongs that form part of the sum of all wrongs; which inevitably leads to extinction.


Hence:

Should homosexual couples be allowed to marry? No (Catholic belief)
Should homosexual couples be allowed civil unions? No (for the better of society as a whole)


And I would also like to add that I am not in favor of forcing my beliefs on others; that is in itself anti-catholic. God lets us be free. But I simply do not want the goverment to support things that are unethical. People are still free to lead a homosexual lifestyle if they wish - fine. But lets not support the immorality underlying within it.

Edited October 23, 2005 by Didacus

[Sojourner]

Thank you, hot stuff, for so eloquently arguing my position.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 23 2005, 04:52 PM']I understand where you're coming from Didacus.  I'm not that familiar with Canadian government.  As far as the US government is concerned, while there are things that I certainly object to morally, I don't know if the government can.  My objections are because I'm Catholic.   The US is clearly not a Catholic state.  I go back and forth on this quite often.  On issues like civil unions, do I have the right to impose my Catholic beliefs on a system that is clearly not religious?  Other issues like abortion, I don't consider Catholic but an issue of human rights and oppression. 

Should homosexual couples be allowed to marry?  No (Catholic belief)
Should homosexual couples be allowed civil unions? I don't know.
[right][snapback]768361[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

hot stuff, I'm afraid you're unfortunately buying into the whole radical left-wing secularist idea that one's Christian beleifs should in no way affect one's political choices. Quite frankly that is load of BS, and has no solid legal basis, and us done untold arm to our legal system over the past century.

Legal decisions cannot exist in a philosophical vacuum, and if they are not shaped by Christian or Catholic values, they will be shaped by other, contrary, values (pagan or secularist).

You appear to object to Catholics opposing "gay marriage," on the absurd grounds that this is "imposing values" (What's wrong with that?) yet seem to have no problem with radical "gay rights" crowd imposing [b]their[/b] godless values on the government by demanding government recognition and approval of their sodomy!

This issue is not simply about Catholic dogma, but is about natural law. Marriage is not only a Catholic sacrament, but is a natural human institution, which is good in itself. It is obvious from a natural-law perspective that homosexual sodomistic "unions" are not in fact marriages.

The States did not recognize "gay marriages" for well over 200 years, so it is stupid to pretend that opposition to these "marriages" is some new extreme development of the "radical right" and is somehow un-American.

hot stuff, you're a great guy and all, but it's beginning to really disturb me how you and other "faithful Catholics" on here seem to consistantly argue (almost knee-jerk it seems) the "gay-rights" or secularist liberal position on nearly every issue.

Edited October 24, 2005 by Socrates