Homosexuals

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1559272' date='Jun 5 2008, 02:03 AM']I think Didy's point (though I will let him correct me if I'm wrong) is that the government isn't implementing laws based on the bible, so using the bible to say why the government shouldn't allow something isn't going to get you very far.

That being said, I am curious Socrates what you think about the state not having anything to do with marriage, and just leaving it up to the church?[/quote]
Marriage is both a natural and a supernatural reality, and that is why society has a duty to defend its moral character.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1559224' date='Jun 4 2008, 11:47 PM']I used to be against gay marriage, but after getting into college, I met MANY gay people, most of whom are my friends, and I have tentatively changed my opinion on the subject. Yes, I believe they should be allowed to get married. Once you take religion out of the picture, the argument against gay marriage becomes very weak.

I think a lot of gay people sexualize themselves way too much, gives other people the impression that gay people are perverted, annoying, and obsessed with sex. I do not support Gay Pride Parades for this reason. I have a lot of respect for gay people who are actually normal and don't flirt with the same sex every time they walk by.
How rude. Believe it or not, gay people can actually love another person of the same sex just as deeply as a heterosexual person.[/quote]
Sexual perversion must not be confused with "love." True love, which can never be expressed in a way contrary to the natural moral law, is a participation in God's own being.

[Madtown Sem.]

Civil law is derived from Natural Law, Natural law is derived from Divine Law, even if it doesn't seem like the three are directly connected. Ultimately it all follows from divine law. BUT even without using divine law as found in revelation, traditional marriage is easily defended. I doubt that any argument can be made that homosexual marriage is for the COMMON GOOD. That means the good of EVERYONE. Marriage between man and woman is consistent with the common good. By natural complementarity and begetting children, the [u]stable[/u] family unit is established, which is the building block of ANY society.

[Jaime]

Civil law [b]should[/b] be derived from natural law. Civil marriage does not. It allows for couples to follow natural law but it does not require it. It is nothing more than a civil contract that can be terminated at any given time.

[Apotheoun]

The Church only recognizes "civil divorce" in cases where a declaration of nullity has been granted, and the "civil divorce" is only required because there are certain positive effects brought into being in the case of the presumed, yet actually invalid, "marriage."

That said, the Latin Church recognizes the indissolubility of a true natural marriage, and has never countenanced the idea that there is such a thing as "temporary marriage," or "divorce" in the case of a valid marriage, either natural or sacramental.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Apotheoun

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1559224' date='Jun 5 2008, 02:47 AM']I used to be against gay marriage, but after getting into college, I met MANY gay people, most of whom are my friends, and I have tentatively changed my opinion on the subject. Yes, I believe they should be allowed to get married. Once you take religion out of the picture, the argument against gay marriage becomes very weak.[/quote]

I used to be on the fence about gay marriage, but the more I've gotten to know gay people during and after college, the more I'm convinced that ultimately it isn't a fulfilling lifestyle. They seem to be constantly searching and unsettled. Of course, a lot of people are like that, and perhaps for most homosexuals their outlet is sexuality because it's their defining characteristic, as opposed to the fraternity lifestyle or goth or anything else one could identify with. But ultimately, the test that one stands in Truth is if they are wholly satisfied and happy with nothing more than God's grace, wanting nothing more in this world.

FWIW, once you take religion out of the picture, the argument for marriage at all becomes very weak.

[StColette]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1559224' date='Jun 5 2008, 01:47 AM']Yes, I believe they should be allowed to get married. Once you take religion out of the picture, the argument against gay marriage becomes very weak.[/quote]

Kitty,

The problem with this statement is that religion can't be taken out of marriage nor can marriage be taken out of religion. Marriage is something that God ordained, not society. You can't take God out of the picture, because marriage is a threefold relationship.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1559293' date='Jun 5 2008, 04:53 AM']Sexual perversion must not be confused with "love." True love, which can never be expressed in a way contrary to the natural moral law, is a participation in God's own being.[/quote]

hhmm, gay people must be really good at this whole "sexual perversion" thing, to stay together for their whole life only for sex. regardless of the relationship, you cannot choose to be around someone for that long without a degree of real love.

I can understand not wanting gay marriage in the church, if it violates your principles, but how could you be hurt by their being a civil equivalent, removed from the church. there isn't anything in the bible about tax benefits or visitation rights.
I don't see why any of you are invested in this subject enough to actually want gay people to not have the tax benefits, and "rights" that come with civil marriage. it really isn't your decision.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Jesus_lol

[Galloglasses]

Have seen the marriage/divorce rates for gay couples in the United states? Homosexuals count for at least 3% of the population, yet the average divorce to marriage rate is higher then in the otherwise straight population.

Tax benifits for gay individuals? Of course, tax benifits for gay couples? dubious, afterall we're questioning the moral validity adn overall legitimacy of gay marriage itself.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Galloglasses

[StColette]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' post='1559404' date='Jun 5 2008, 10:20 AM']I can understand not wanting gay marriage in the church, if it violates your principles, but how could you be hurt by their being a civil equivalennt, removed from the church.[/quote]

Because marriage can't be removed from God. He sanctioned it between male and female. The government has no right to make laws that go against Natural Law.

[Jesus_lol]

^well thats just it. God didnt make the government sanctioned benefits of marriage. so they shouldn't be given only to the one side.
since these aren't "marriage", the government shouldn't restrict them.

and that is natural law according to the catholic church, which is not the government.

[prose]

The thing is, there needs to be a decision about where the "benefits" (tax-wise) of unions stop. Let's say we expand to same-sex couples. Fine.

Now what about two celibate people that live together but just want the benefits of that union? Should we extend to them?

What about a bi-sexual person? Is it discriminatory to them that they can only marry one gender? Do we extend the rights to multiple spouses in this case?

In Canada, two straight men got married shortly after the law came in about gay marriage so as one could benefit from the other's health plan (no lie, look it up).

In any case, do we make "love" a requirement to these unions? How are we going to prove that?

How about how long they live together?

Do they need to be having sex?

What about polygamous couples?

What about if there was a health/tax benefit to uniting with a first cousin? Do we allow that?

I guess the thing is, although some people think it is arbitrary, there IS a line to unions.

This conversation is waaaaaay more complicated than you are making it out to be.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1559224' date='Jun 5 2008, 12:47 AM']Believe it or not, gay people can actually love another person of the same sex just as deeply as a heterosexual person.[/quote]

Politically correct, liberalized, sentimental nonsense. Participation in a 'gay couple,' regardless of the best intentions, is mutual scandal. It is fornication, period. Like unmarried heterosexual couples engaging in sexual activity...there may be 'love' between them and they may want great things for eachother...but this love is undermined and lessened by their mutual scandal.

You know how I know you are wrong? Because the love of marriage is ordered toward the internal love of the Trinity. The Father and the Son so selflessly love one another that their eternally shared love is what gives personhood to the Holy Spirit. The love of the Father and the Son is productive and fertile and binds the Trinity together. So when two heterosexuals love eachother and their love manifests in the sexual act, God has blessed the act with the capacity to also be fertile and productive in the creation of a new life. No matter how much homosexuals profess love for eachother...the reality is that God did not naturally order two men to share so much in the life of the Trinity that their unitive expression of 'love' could overflow into new life. Homosexual sex is just and only that: sex.

Conscientious Christians and Catholics have as their duty to vote in a manner that represents their beliefs so that the Truth can be more manifest in society and the world. The argument for the 'separation of Church & State' in no way diminishes the individual responsibility of Catholics to use their vote in a manner which most aids the work of the Catholic Church. Quoting the Consitution doesn't give us the right to be wish-washy relativistic "we want everyone to be happy" Catholics. We still have the responsibility to "Go...make disciples of every nation...TEACHING THEM ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED..."

Peace,

Todd W.

Edited June 5, 2008 by Veridicus

[XIX]

[quote name='Alycin' post='1559273' date='Jun 5 2008, 05:06 AM']While this is true to an extent, if I lived with my best friend all my life, and I was on my deathbed, I would want her there. It's the same concept. Those with whom you are closest should be allowed there when you're dying, and the person that you are the very closest to should have the power of attorney.[/quote]
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congrega...-unions_en.html[/url]

"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 and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."

[CatherineM]

I used to have a lot of gay clients. I guess because I was willing to take clients with AIDS back in the '80's when no one else wanted to be in the same room with them. I would do wills, and powers of attorney that allowed them to have the same deathbed protections that legally married spouses do. As to tax issues, in the US when I was doing tax law, gay partners could claim their "house spouse" on their taxes so long as they contributed 51% or more to their upkeep. They couldn't file as married, but head of household gave them the exact same tax rate. I never did an adoption for a gay couple. I wasn't asked because at that time it wasn't allowed.

I had a political science professor ask in class once when we were studying legalized slavery, what the white students in the class owed the black students in the class because our ancestors enslaved their ancestors. You can image the responses from apologies to reparations. In the end the professor said we were wrong. All one citizen owes another citizen is to obey the laws in place at the time we are living.

That's what equal rights mean. We all have the right to be allowed to live in the US, to vote, buy property where we can afford to, move where we would like to, the right to pay taxes to support our society, and the right to go to jail if we violate the rules. We have the right to decide who gets our property when we die, who gets to be by our deathbed and make medical decisions for us when we aren't able. These are rights like voting that we have, but often do not take advantage of. We are allowed free association. If two individuals choose to live together, gay or straight, we shouldn't interfere with that. That doesn't make it a marriage. Just because we call it one doesn't make it so.

We had a civil wedding for immigration and the government, and a church wedding for ourselves and God. Even if gay marriage becomes legal in all the US some day, like it is here in Canada, it isn't going to change the validity of our sacrament or water it down. To me it is like calling communion in a Protestant church the Eucharist doesn't make it so. They have the right to call it whatever they want to, but it doesn't change what it is. If gay people want to call their partnering a marriage, and the government wants to ratify that, it doesn't really change what it is, or isn't. The most important thing for us to do, is to speak the truth. We can't force anyone to listen to it, or hear our words, but we can always speak the truth. That doesn't impinge on anyone's rights.