Obama and gay marriage...

[Lady Bug]

Caesar is dead now, I can't give him anything

 

[Tigg]

what? are you serious? So saying two ppl of the same sex marring, is not God's will, equals, anti gay words that ties in with anti gay actions?

TY for your replies. Nah. 2 same people are not doing God's will if they are Catholic and marry. And civily mostly, as well. I will bet I will be misunderstood again which goes to prove that I do not explain myself well apparently. I am talking civil marriage as CC pointed out as well. Not marriage by the Catholic Church.

There are hateful words and people behind those words out there. Hateful words can lead to acting out those words. I don't know why gays are so hated by some or why the Jewish people throughout history have been hated as well. No they both are not related that I know off. Just a'wondering out loud. Anyhow's, I do know the Catholic Church disapproves of the act but not the person. The Catholic Church will never marry gays.

Anyways, I stated my views (I do mean civil marrage - why not allow that?) and seemed to be referenced as not a Catholic. Lol. I will look forward to some paperwork on that.

Thanks for your explanation Benedictaoo. Gotta go pay bills, uggggg. God bless

 

[LightHorseman]

I'm not promoting homosexuality. I'm merely pointing out that there is no reason to expect our church's doctrine to be binding on secular matters.

We don't expect the government to deny Hindu couples marriage, even though their marriage is not recognised by our Church. It is ridiculous to expect the government to deny homosexual couples marriage because their marriage would not be recognised by our Church. It is a BLATANT double standard, indeed, an HYPOCRACY, which, if you're so all fired up about what the Bible says, is just as much a black and white sin as homosexuality.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Ok, horse, we should also allow for Bigamy...
Or inappropriate behavior with animals, or pedophilia...
THEY are ALL preferences.

 

[AMDG]

Render on to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, Render on to God what is God's.

There's a problem with using that when there is an attempt to use that saying to show that there is a separation between Church (God) and the secular.

You see, it was asked "whose image is upon the coin" (that's where the "Render onto Ceasar what is Ceasar's..." comes from). However, one can take that a little farther. Whose image is Ceasar? The answer: Man was made in God's image. Oh, I guess that the coin is also God's because Ceasar is God's. In that case, marriage is God's as well (God designed it for one man and one woman so that they could cooperate with God and their love could be so real that "in nine months they would have to give it, a little he or she, a name".) Man really shouldn't be "tinkering" with what is clearly God's province.

 

[2Cosmic2Charlie]

There's a problem with using that when there is an attempt to use that saying to show that there is a separation between Church (God) and the secular.

You see, it was asked "whose image is upon the coin" (that's where the "Render onto Ceasar what is Ceasar's..." comes from). However, one can take that a little farther. Whose image is Ceasar? The answer: Man was made in God's image. Oh, I guess that the coin is also God's because Ceasar is God's. In that case, marriage is God's as well (God designed it for one man and one woman so that they could cooperate with God and their love could be so real that "in nine months they would have to give it, a little he or she, a name".) Man really shouldn't be "tinkering" with what is clearly God's province.

The US gives a civil meaning to marriage not given by the Chruch.

Hence, that is a component to the concept of marriage that is civil, not spirtual. That civil meaning is a civil right given by the state irrepective of the relgious beleifs of the couple.

Those are civil right belonging to the state to given and in America they should be given to anyone asking for them.

 

[AMDG]

The US gives a civil meaning to marriage not given by the Chruch.

Well, the thing is that my marriage in the Church is recognized by the law of the land--not as a civil union, but as a marriage (two permanently become one as God intended). Why on earth would I want the meaning of my marriage cheapened and a scandal given to my children by my country claiming that my marriage means nothing more than two people living together against the very morals that were taught to my children. Sounds very much like there is some stepping on the amendment that is suppose to insure that the federal government is not being hostile to my (and my children's) religious rights.

 

[LightHorseman]

Ok, horse, we should also allow for Bigamy...
Or inappropriate behavior with animals, or pedophilia...
THEY are ALL preferences.

Oh good, I've never seen THIS argument before.

First of all, inappropriate behavior with animals and paedophilia involve the denial of someone's informed consent. Consentual homosexuality doesn't. I would also contend that bigamy usually does as well.

However... it is up to the SECULAR power to approve or disaprove such relationships in a SECULAR society. The secular power should approve or disaprove of them for SECULAR reasons, NOT because a certain church group says so.

Let me put it to you this way... say there was a church or religion that decided Catholics were'nt legitimately married in the eyes of their church, and thius the civil power should deny Catholics recognised marriage in civil, secular terms. How would you feel about that? You'd be outraged. "How dare some religious group get to tell us that we can't get married when we don't even belong to their religion! Why, thats outrageous!" And quite right too.

Now... how is that hypthetical in any way different to what you are doing to homosexuals? Why should the Catholic Church be able to demand who can and can't get married OUTSIDE of our Church? I'll say it again. No one is saying the Catholic Church has to marry homosexuals, and nor should they. no one is saying the Catholic Church has to recognise homosexual marriage. But in SECULAR, CIVIL society, which is NOT run or owned by the Catholic Church, there is no reason to expect our purely religious dogma to be applied to general secular concepts.

You come up with a purely secular reason to condemn homosexual marriage, and I'll be right behind you demanding the secular power condemn it. Untill that time, when all the reasons you have for condemning homosexual marriage are based on Catholic theology, I will continue to believe that the condemnation should be restricted to the Catholic Church. Fair enough?

 

[AMDG]

If you think that what anyone else does in any way shape or form cheapens your marriage, one might contend you mustn't have a very high or firm opinion of your marriage to begin with.

No. I read your passionate plea. You called homosexual marriage "marriage". Well it isn't. Marriage is one husband and one wife and it was "invented" by God. Marriage is "till death do us part", two people, one man and one woman, making one union (and their love may, with God, create yet another person). Should two men choose to live together or if two women choose to live together they may have a civil union--but they are not living in the definition of marriage. They might want to call their union "marriage", but unless they can convince God to change His mind about what He created, their union will remain just a "civil union" and their condition will remain "disordered".

 

[2Cosmic2Charlie]

Well, the thing is that my marriage in the Church is recognized by the law of the land--not as a civil union, but as a marriage (two permanently become one as God intended).

On this you are mistaken. The state allows a priest, as a man of the cloth, to marry people in the name of the state. This is a civil arrangement from the standpoint of the state. Which, I will remind you ,does not consider the marriage a permanent arrangment ordained by God, but rather a social arrangement that can be ended without cause by either party.

The US by the way is one of the few countries that allow men of the cloth to marry in the name of the state. In many countries people are married in their chruches by their clergy and then married again (later in the day or perhaps a few days later) in a judges chamber in order to complete the civil arrangement.

If this was the case in the US I beleive we wouldn't be having this issue on marriage because it would be obvious that their are two things going on in a Catholic marriage: a sacrement and a civil union.

Why on earth would I want the meaning of my marriage cheapened and a scandal given to my children by my country claiming that my marriage means nothing more than two people living together against the very morals that were taught to my children.

High sounding words. How do you feel about your children learning that all you need to do to get married is show up at a justice of the peace and pay 50 dollars ?

Sounds very much like there is some stepping on the amendment that is suppose to insure that the federal government is not being hostile to my (and my children's) religious rights

Forgive me for saying so but I don't think you even understand what your children's religous rights are.

 

[Krentis]

No. I read your passionate plea. You called homosexual marriage "marriage". Well it isn't. Marriage is one husband and one wife and it was "invented" by God. Marriage is "till death do us part", two people, one man and one woman, making one union (and their love may, with God, create yet another person). Should two men choose to live together or if two women choose to live together they may have a civil union--but they are not living in the definition of marriage. They might want to call their union "marriage", but unless they can convince God to change His mind about what He created, their union will remain just a "civil union" and their condition will remain "disordered".

LOL. Does your state allow marriages to end in divorce? What are you doing to change that?

 

[AMDG]

Does your state allow marriages to end in divorce? What are you doing to change that?

You have a problem understanding what is civil and what is not?

 

[LightHorseman]

No. I read your passionate plea. You called homosexual marriage "marriage". Well it isn't. Marriage is one husband and one wife and it was "invented" by God. Marriage is "till death do us part", two people, one man and one woman, making one union (and their love may, with God, create yet another person). Should two men choose to live together or if two women choose to live together they may have a civil union--but they are not living in the definition of marriage. They might want to call their union "marriage", but unless they can convince God to change His mind about what He created, their union will remain just a "civil union" and their condition will remain "disordered".

OK, so, same question back to you... do you consider Hindus or athiests, or anyone else who has a secular marriage recognised by the state, but NOT by the Church, to be married?

Same as to the other guy, simple question, yes or no answer would be great.

 

[LightHorseman]

High sounding words. How do you feel about your children learning that all you need to do to get married is show up at a justice of the peace and pay 50 dollars ?

QFT.

I would contend that the marital tribulations of Britney Spears, just for example, does far more to cheapen the institution of marriage than any committed, life-long, mutually consenting, mutually supporting homosexual marriage ever could.

 

[WarriorAngel]

QFT.

I would contend that the marital tribulations of Britney Spears, just for example, does far more to cheapen the institution of marriage than any committed, life-long, mutually consenting, mutually supporting homosexual marriage ever could.

I think it is 80-90% of homosexual 'relationships' have infidelity.
Of which the break up time is normally on average two years.

Long and commited is not the norm.

Nor can they have children as ordained naturally - for the good of the nation.
Barren couples - altho barren - are still ordained by God as one woman and one man, and still have the right equipment.

Furthermore, Mackenzie Phillips consented to her dad - she said. She was a minor, but she consented.
Can incestous relationships also be 'married'??

Pedophiles can also get young 'minors' who are of an age of reason and it is still statutory rape, but it can consentual.
Its depraved imo.

inappropriate behavior with animals might be consentuous, can you proove otherwise??

Bigamy of Mormons and other groups are consenting...should they have several wives - or husbands?

You are making a determination on what consent is....and if that should be the final determination instead of letting GOD be the factor in leadership and laws.
After all, we promote no killing because God gave us that law.
We say - no theft - because God gave that law.
We borrow alot of laws off God - so why stop there?

Furthermore; WE THE PPL... by government elected officals to make laws do so on condition of the good of the nation. Not the few who want all to be subjected to their disordered lusts....[10% or less of the entire country]
Or we do not vote them back in.AND vote in someone who will keep our interests at heart.

 

[benedictaoo]

TY for your replies. Nah. 2 same people are not doing God's will if they are Catholic and marry. And civily mostly, as well. I will bet I will be misunderstood again which goes to prove that I do not explain myself well apparently. I am talking civil marriage as CC pointed out as well. Not marriage by the Catholic Church.

There are hateful words and people behind those words out there. Hateful words can lead to acting out those words. I don't know why gays are so hated by some or why the Jewish people throughout history have been hated as well. No they both are not related that I know off. Just a'wondering out loud. Anyhow's, I do know the Catholic Church disapproves of the act but not the person. The Catholic Church will never marry gays.

Anyways, I stated my views (I do mean civil marrage - why not allow that?) and seemed to be referenced as not a Catholic. Lol. I will look forward to some paperwork on that.

Thanks for your explanation Benedictaoo. Gotta go pay bills, uggggg. God bless

Okay, so you aren't referring to ppl in this thread... sorry, i thought perhaps you were.

But here's the deal with the whole thing, it's a false dichotomy, there is no civi marriage and then God's marriage.

"marriage" belongs to God, period. not to the state, never to the state, which is why the Church does not recognize civil unions. Notice even with heterosexual couples, the Church refers to them as unions, not marriages.

If gay ppl want to have a legal agreement between them, more power to them. I'm all for them having community property laws, paying joint taxes, sharing medial insurance, and being first of kin... they can have all that, they just can't call it "marriage" and that's where the issues come in. They want it to be called "marriage", not unions. Why?

I believe they can have these rights that are secular rights, not godly rights if that's what they want, but they don't want that... they are demanding that they be recognized as 'married' and that's not God's will. They just can not stand before God and take vows, that would really be wrong. If they want to stand before a lawyer and enter into an agreement, fine but they can not take an oath or vows that makes two, one flesh. That is reserved for man and women, not man and man or woman and woman.

 

[benedictaoo]

There's a problem with using that when there is an attempt to use that saying to show that there is a separation between Church (God) and the secular.

You see, it was asked "whose image is upon the coin" (that's where the "Render onto Ceasar what is Ceasar's..." comes from). However, one can take that a little farther. Whose image is Ceasar? The answer: Man was made in God's image. Oh, I guess that the coin is also God's because Ceasar is God's. In that case, marriage is God's as well (God designed it for one man and one woman so that they could cooperate with God and their love could be so real that "in nine months they would have to give it, a little he or she, a name".) Man really shouldn't be "tinkering" with what is clearly God's province.

Oh for the love...

Jesus was referring to paying taxes, not to every law imaginable that comes down the pike.

In everybody's favorite council, (V2) it says we enjoy religious freedom where if a government wants to ram down our throats, something that's against our faith, we do not have to go along with it, just because it's the government doing it.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Also God's Laws.
No incest.
No inappropriate behavior with animals
No Bigamy
No pedophilia

And we find them immoral and unnatural.

God's Law
No homosexuality - but we say - well, its our right.
Who said it is a right??
God said it is not.

FWIW - most laws in any nation [except those severely liberalized] USE God's Laws in their country.

No violence.
No killing
No theft
Sundays off. Yep - the government forces no business to work on Sundays.
etc etc etc

Look at the laws of the country - they are God based.
Just because Obama ridiculed the Bible...
Doesnt mean God is still not in the secular society's laws and governing.

 

[benedictaoo]

well the whole concept of law comes from God giving it to Moses but man in the 21 st century really believes he can re write laws and cut God out of the picture.

it's just really sad to see "Catholics" and other Christians think they can actually support this. They don't get it and they don't realize that this is about taking God's laws and making them private and subjective and placing man's laws above God and all else.

Sick, to think someone who is Christian would go for that.

It's just another little stunt from satan, the great ape of God who mimics God. Now he's mimicking being God by giving his law to over ride God's law that we've had for 4,000 years now. and man is stupid enough to fall for this.

 

[Rebekka]

On this you are mistaken. The state allows a priest, as a man of the cloth, to marry people in the name of the state. This is a civil arrangement from the standpoint of the state. Which, I will remind you ,does not consider the marriage a permanent arrangment ordained by God, but rather a social arrangement that can be ended without cause by either party.

The US by the way is one of the few countries that allow men of the cloth to marry in the name of the state. In many countries people are married in their chruches by their clergy and then married again (later in the day or perhaps a few days later) in a judges chamber in order to complete the civil arrangement.

If this was the case in the US I beleive we wouldn't be having this issue on marriage because it would be obvious that their are two things going on in a Catholic marriage: a sacrement and a civil union.

I don't know how things are in other countries, but I'm convinced that in Belgium and Germany, and I KNOW that in the Netherlands the civil marriage must come first - so the other way round than you described here Charlie. A priest cannot marry an unwed couple. If he does then he's breaking the law. The civil marriage has to come first.

Both wedding ceremonies can be done on the same day (then the couple will go from the city hall straight to the church - a lot of couples do it that way) or the civil ceremony can be done a day, a few days, a week (our case), a few months (my parents) or a year (friend's parents) before the church wedding, and I guess couples who waited even longer will exist also.

But yes, I think this separation (or lack thereof in the US) plays a part in us having gay civil marriage and the US not having it.

Churches know that they will never have to marry gay couples.