Re-defining The Term "marriage"

[ironmonk]

SSA is a disorder.

It puts a stumbling block infront of children to say it's ok.

To say nothing is wrong with it, goes against the life that God created.

The most important thing on earth is God.

People who are active with the SSA disorder are at grave risk.

Those in Canada who gave approval to the ssa marriages are at a grave risk.

There is nothing to debate, acting on ssa is a mortal sin. Approving of acting on ssa is a mortal sin.

Just like fornication is a mortal sin, and approving of fornication is a mortal sin.

Romans 1:32

Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

Our job on this earth is to help our fellow man come closer to Christ. By trying to help others, it will help us help ourselves.

To give consent to mortal sins is a mortal sin. I for one do not want to put a stumbling block infront of anyone.

Now... get back to work.

God Bless, Love in Christ & Mary

ironmonk

Edited July 30, 2003 by ironmonk

[hyperdulia again]

bump

[God Conquers]

I weep* when I read the news or listen to the radio these days.

We are a failing country, our Catholic politicians are not Catholic, our Catholic Bishops are afraid to tell them so, our Catholic priests speak out agianst the Church. The media gives voice only to those who agree with same sex marriage or are dissenting or bashing the Catholic Church. Tolerance is not a two way street in Canada. There will be serious repercussions here for what they are trying to do.

* may also read: am filled with inhuman Hulk-Like rage

[God Conquers]

Also, I believe that no society has the right even to DEFINE marriage in the first place, let alone RE-define it.

Marriage is a pan-historical, pan-societal institution. What gall our government has for thinking they can change it's definition. It's sick.

I don't believe in civil marriages. We should never have let the State decide who can get married, it was inevitable after that to have them redefine who can get married.

[Jake Huether]

Is there a place where my dog and I can get married? I think it's discrimination. I mean - if I really love my dog - then I should be able to marry her!

Of course I'm joking about wanting to marry my dog. But I know for FACT that there are other sexual disorders, like people who are attracted to dead people, and animals, etc.

So if we are prepared to "change" the definition of marriage to suite the needs of homosexuals, then I think our society ought to gird their loins for the coming mess that will be caused by this.

[God Conquers]

exactly, there are lobby groups pushing in Canada to lower the age of sexual consent to 8. Why not intergenerational marriage?

[hyperdulia again]

come holy spirit

[FreeSoul]

Because animals, children, and the dead can not speak for themselves.

Two adults can make independant decisions by themselves.

Trudeau said gov't's dont belong in the bedrooms of the nation..and I concurr.

[Jake Huether]

There are some that would argue with you.

Who says animals, children, and the dead "can't speak for themselves". Logic would say that they can't. But a number of menally "challenged" adults would say that they could.

Also, most alcoholic adults say they're fine. Since they are "adults" should we take their word for it?

Many homosexuals do recognize that they have a problem, and they deal with it. The majority however, like the alcoholics mentioned above, think they're fine.

Simply because an "adult" can speak for himself, does NOT mean that what the speak is good for them (or for others).

[FreeSoul]

So you couldn't see a problem with courts stepping into telling alcoholics/the mentally challenged who to marry?

Let's just hogtie em while we're at it.

[Carrie]

FreeSoul, your point doesn't make sense because we're not judging the morality of being an alcoholic. Being an alcoholic does not put your salvation in danger the way that active homosexuality does. It is morally wrong for 2 men or 2 women to marry. It's in the bible.

Being as morality in society seems to be going down the drain, shouldn't there be some steps to try and hold onto it, like not letting homosexuals marry? If we allow it to become legal, then we're just saying "whatever, what God said is unnatural doesn't matter." As Catholics, aren't we to uphold God's will over someone's so-called priviledges?

[Jake Huether]

So you couldn't see a problem with courts stepping into telling alcoholics/the mentally challenged who to marry?

Let's just hogtie em while we're at it.

Alcoholism does pose a problem withIN marriage - but it isn't a barrier TO marriage. You see, the formula for marriage (and for a family for that matter) is a man and a woman freely giving themselves to eachother (FOREVER).

While the Church would FORBID two drunks (at that time) to marry eachother, there is nothing wrong with a sober man and woman marrying (even if they are alcoholics).

The Church does condemn alcoholism, as the fruits of it are drunkenness (which is as sin). But alcoholism can be controlled - and it isn't an infringment on the formula for "family".

Homosexuality too can be controlled. But the whole point of homosexual marriage isn't to remain "chaste" if you know what I mean. If you are intending to "marry" someone of the same sex, you are acting on your homosexual tendancy and therefore a- the formula for family can NOT be met, and b- you are in a state of sin while entering anyway.

Homosexuality is parallel with alcoholism in that they both are a disorder. But there is no parallel in marriage - because two alcoholics can control their disease and meet the requirements of a natural family. Whereas, two homosexuals who intend to marry are by that very fact admitting that their disease is not under control!

[cmotherofpirl]

So you couldn't see a problem with courts stepping into telling alcoholics/the mentally challenged who to marry?

Let's just hogtie em while we're at it.

Mentally challenged people in some cases need permission to marry.

[jasJis]

Man. I can't believe I havn't been commenting on this thread.

A few points.

Marriage is recognition of Natural Law and is first implemented and defined through Sacramental Marriage.

Civil law only recognizes what exists for legal/societal purposes to aid societal order. Civil law cannot define natural law, it only puts it into effect.

By allowing same sex marriages, it completely denies Natural Law (wich is established by God in His creation) and elevates a disordered status to be considered ordered and valued equally as an ordered status in complete denial of Natural Law. It's the tail wagging the dog.

FreeSoul,

It's not about the Government being in the bedroom. What's right or wrong in the bedroom can be known through Natural Law and morality understood and taught through religion. The Government serves the Church and God's creation so it should reflect Natural Law and the Church. As such, it is involved in the bedroom because God and morality is involved in the bedroom.

Most States do not allow incompentent people to marry. That is why there is usually a few days wait to get married after getting a license. Give drunks or impulsive people an opportunity to sober up or reconsider. Mentally incompetent people need permission from their guardian to ensure that they have means to take care of themselves. That's the role of Society and civil law.

Some things are right and we know it. We do not allow underage people to marry. We do not allow older people to have sex with children, etc.