Gay Marriage

[MJS]

I haven't been on in awhile, and don't know if this topic has been addressed yet, but it is everywhere right now, and it needs to be talked about.

What do you think about Bush and his speech on gay marriage?

Do you think that civil unions should be legal, but not marriage?

(yes, I know most of you don't think homosexuallity is right, and this is not a discussion about that. This is a question of government control over this matter. Please do not turn this into an anti-homosexuality rant).

[Aloysius]

our school had us write letters to our senators about issues that concern us, this was mine.

2-13-04

Dear Senator:

At school we have been encouraged to write to our representatives in regards to issues that concern us.  I agree that this is important to let those who represent us know what we believe and what we want out of our government.  I feel that it is important that you know where the youth of today stand on certain issues.  This is why I have chosen to right to you about an issue that is of growing concern in today’s culture.  The idea of homosexual marriage or civil union is of growing concern, and I feel that now more than ever we need to defend the traditional definition of a marriage between a man and a woman.

What I feel I must address is the civil authority for recognizing marriage.  Traditionally, marriage has always been a religious institution.  Today, however, it can easily be reduced to an action of the state in a court of law.  One must look at what a marriage proclaimed by the state really is, and why exactly a civil union is declared.  A marriage proclaimed by the state in all actuality is not a marriage as it is traditionally defined.  It is not intended to join two souls, but to join two persons and give them, as one entity, certain social and economic privileges.  Now, why would the state do such a thing?  Why is the state truly concerned about joining people together so much that it would give them privileges to encourage marriage?  The answer is simple: a marriage is a channel by which new citizens are created and raised, and the state wishes to make a better situation in order to produce better citizens in the future.  This is why a man and a woman receive social and economic privileges.  A same-sex union can never bring into existence a new life, and thus there is no reason for the state to accept such a marriage.  One more question can then be raised: what about homosexual couples who adopt children?  Under this theory that the state should only recognize a civil union to raise better citizens, homosexual civil unions could fulfill it by adoption.  The answer to this question is simple; those who adopt already receive special privileges to help them along in raising the child.  There is no need to recognize the gay union in order to give the man privileges to raise the child.  Arguments from the other side deal with morality, taking the name of civil rights.  If these convict you to break what I have presented as the states authority to join people together, there is a whole other side with convincing moral principles.  I would like to summarize my moral view and the moral view of a great many people in the world in these quotations from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an  exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great  variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains  largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of  grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."  They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not  proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarities. Under no circumstances can they  be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not  negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.  They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust  discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in  their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties  they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them  inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental  grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

  In closing, I urge you to defend traditional marriage values if not for moral principle at least for these precepts by which the state only may grant civil unions.  If none of the previous arguments convince you, please consider the economic devastation a whole new category of marriages would cause.  As debate rages and you feel you must take a stand, know that there are many who stand behind you if you oppose same sex marriage.

that about sums up my position against Gay Marriage and Gay Civil union.

isn't it funny how the democrats who are so concerned about the economy and such fail to see a problem with all the extra benefits that will need to be handed out if civil unions are to be allowed for a whole new group of ppl? :cool:

[MrsFrozen]

That's great, Aloysius! I agree! :D

[God Conquers]

not to mention the economic insustainability of legal rights for unions other than man/woman ones. Big payouts by society, no societal contribution back in.

[smeagol]

Bush's tax cuts will prove to be more devastating to the economy than gay marriages would be.

[Aloysius]

<_< not true. anyway, keep on topic.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Yes, please stick to the topic. If you want to debate the economy start a new thread. ;)

[smeagol]

http://www.economist.com/printedition/disp...tory_ID=2459758

[Guest lundercovera]

i'm gay, committed to living by the Church's teaching on chastity. i do not have 'unequal rights' i have the SAME EXACT RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE, you have the right to live as you choose (i choose chastity, some choose sexual immorality), you have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex (regardless of your sexual orientation). no one has the right to marry multiple ppl, marry animals, marry the same sex, marry anyone other than the opposite sex. the end. PERIOD. it is not unequal rights.

i would consider it immoral for me to marry someone of the opposite sex cause it's not fair to them because of my sexual orientation. but it is my right to do so if i wish, otherwise i have chosen not to be a married person.

[M.SIGGA]

I'm not for gay marriage and the topic of marriage doesn't belong in the Constitution. I wish he would propose an ammendment that would really make a difference in the lives of everyday Americans. I'm more for Swartenneger's allowing foriegn-born Americans to run for president than the gay marriage ammendment.

[MrsFrozen]

i'm gay, committed to living by the Church's teaching on chastity.  i do not have 'unequal rights' i have the SAME EXACT RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE, you have the right to live as you choose (i choose chastity, some choose sexual immorality), you have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex (regardless of your sexual orientation).  no one has the right to marry multiple ppl, marry animals, marry the same sex, marry anyone other than the opposite sex.  the end.  PERIOD.  it is not unequal rights.   

i would consider it immoral for me to marry someone of the opposite sex cause it's not fair to them because of my sexual orientation.  but it is my right to do so if i wish, otherwise i have chosen not to be a married person.

Hi, lundercovera. I don't think I've seen you here before, so let me say welcome to Phatmass.

So many gay people do choose sexual immorality, and I am moved by your love for the Lord. You will be in my prayers. God bless. :)

Edited February 28, 2004 by MrsFrozen