Defend Marriage

[Dominus Fidelis]

Americans...Catholic and non-Catholic Christians...

http://www.yourcatholicvoice.org/index.php?id=petition&petition=2

Sign their petition to protect marriage and send it to your friends and family too!

 

[Debi1967]

signed away
Deborah Bernaerts
My goodness what will they think of next...

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

I have signed it.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Looked at it. Respectfully refused to sign.

I would like you to consider that amending the constitution to right a socio-cultural problem is just not the correct solution to the problem.

Thank you.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Well Cosmic Charlie,

What is the right solution?

 

[Debi1967]

Looked at it. Respectfully refused to sign.

I would like you to consider that amending the constitution to right a socio-cultural problem is just not the correct solution to the problem.

Thank you.

Do you remember that because we are Catholic we are Christian and defenders of Christ and His teachings too. See the thing is we live in a country where maybe just maybe our voice does count if enough of us say we do not want it to be so. Why not use that to our advantage? I do not understand that at all. This country was built on the premise that our vote does count. So if enough of us got together and could sway the others to see this is what we want then we are doing the work of the Lord as well.....
In Christ
Debi

 

[Polycarp1]

Well, my thought here is that you are certainly entitled to hold fast to that which you believe -- but when you start enthroning elements of what you believe as statute law, or even more so as Constitutional law, you must proceed very carefully. Sometimes this is appropriate -- e.g., the penal laws on murder, theft, etc., the amendments protecting against racial discrimination, and so on. And sometimes it is not.

Would you not object to an amendment that enables or requires schoolteachers to present to their students the Gospel of sin and repentance as told from a strict fundamentalist Protestant viewpoint? I know I certainly would. But for those who believe in that way, it's quite literally the most important thing they can do, to ensure that everyone adheres to their understanding of the Gospel.

A civil marriage before a judge between two atheists, or a marriage of two Hindus conducted according to proper Vedic ritual, does not injure the belief of good Christians in the sacramental character of Christian marriage. I truly fail to see why legal recognition of the bond that these folks feel between them will do so when those other ceremonies do not.

 

[kdet]

Signed it

 

[raptor13]

Well, my thought here is that you are certainly entitled to hold fast to that which you believe -- but when you start enthroning elements of what you believe as statute law, or even more so as Constitutional law, you must proceed very carefully. Sometimes this is appropriate -- e.g., the penal laws on murder, theft, etc., the amendments protecting against racial discrimination, and so on. And sometimes it is not.

Would you not object to an amendment that enables or requires schoolteachers to present to their students the Gospel of sin and repentance as told from a strict fundamentalist Protestant viewpoint? I know I certainly would. But for those who believe in that way, it's quite literally the most important thing they can do, to ensure that everyone adheres to their understanding of the Gospel.

A civil marriage before a judge between two atheists, or a marriage of two Hindus conducted according to proper Vedic ritual, does not injure the belief of good Christians in the sacramental character of Christian marriage. I truly fail to see why legal recognition of the bond that these folks feel between them will do so when those other ceremonies do not.

This "legal recognition" would be wrong in the light of natural law, that is, that man was made for woman and woman was made for man. Natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us. This is the highest of laws because it is not determined by man, but by God, and is therefore immutable. Natural law is not up for debate.

Therefore, by implementing the Federal Marriage Protection Act, our Constitution would only be enforcing a law that is naturally there in the first place.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

This "legal recognition" would be wrong in the light of natural law, that is, that man was made for woman and woman was made for man. Natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us. This is the highest of laws because it is not determined by man, but by God, and is therefore immutable. Natural law is not up for debate.

Therefore, by implementing the Federal Marriage Protection Act, our Constitution would only be enforcing a law that is naturally there in the first place.

Very well said Rapture.

 

[Polycarp1]

Thanks for the answer, raptor -- I had not taken into consideration the argument from natural law, and I appreciate, sincerely, the clear explanation you gave.

 

[KC Catholic]

Signed it.

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

Well Cosmic Charlie,

What is the right solution?

Well, geez, I don't know.

Maybe a little prespective might help. The Sacrement of Marriage is not the civil agreement of marriage that the state makes it.

The Sacrement of Marriage cannot be disssolved, the civil agreement of marrige can. Where is the movement to change the constitution to forbid divorce ?

The Sacrement of Marriage requires reflection and, in almost all parishes, classes and retreats before undertaken. Yet anyone, anywhere can get married at anytime in our society.

Look, we live in a secular society that recognizes civil marriage mostly for reasons of tax, social benefit and rights of property. This is not the Sacrement that the Catholic Church recognizes. As long as the State does not compel the Chruch to actually perfrom the Sacrement of Marriage for homosexuals (something I have never heard that anyone is even thinking about.) I have to admit, it hard for me to get excited about this.

My marriage is not the marriage of two homosexuals, or for that matter the marriage of Britney Spears and whats-his-name. And the fact the Brintney (or two guys) can avail themselves to such a pale transfiguration of Christian Marriage in a civil marriage does not, to me at least, represent an issue in my life. Nor ko I see it as an attack on my marriage.

Sorry.

 

[raptor13]

Thanks for the answer, raptor -- I had not taken into consideration the argument from natural law, and I appreciate, sincerely, the clear explanation you gave.

You're quite welcome .

 

[raptor13]

Well, geez, I don't know.

Maybe a little prespective might help. The Sacrement of Marriage is not the civil agreement of marriage that the state makes it.

The Sacrement of Marriage cannot be disssolved, the civil agreement of marrige can. Where is the movement to change the constitution to forbid divorce ?

The Sacrement of Marriage requires reflection and, in almost all parishes, classes and retreats before undertaken. Yet anyone, anywhere can get married at anytime in our society.

Look, we live in a secular society that recognizes civil marriage mostly for reasons of tax, social benefit and rights of property. This is not the Sacrement that the Catholic Church recognizes. As long as the State does not compel the Chruch to actually perfrom the Sacrement of Marriage for homosexuals (something I have never heard that anyone is even thinking about.) I have to admit, it hard for me to get excited about this.

My marriage is not the marriage of two homosexuals, or for that matter the marriage of Britney Spears and whats-his-name. And the fact the Brintney (or two guys) can avail themselves to such a pale transfiguration of Christian Marriage in a civil marriage does not, to me at least, represent an issue in my life. Nor ko I see it as an attack on my marriage.

Sorry.

You're right. Civil marriage is not the Sacramental marriage of the Church. And you're right, it is not an attack on your marriage. But, same sex marriages are such a radical transformation of the base idea of the marriage (that is, the joining of man and woman as 'one flesh') that it shouldn't even be called a 'marriage'.

The allowance of same-sex marriages would be an unstoppable promotion of the homosexual form of sex, which would further add to the debasement of our society, implying that pleasure and not procreation is the primary goal of sex. While I admit that our society is already well into believing that, this is no reason to stop fighting against the tide.

Our society will not stop sinking into decadence by us doing nothing about it, believing that it does not attack us. If you will not defend the idea of Marriage for the sake of your own marriage, then defend it for the sake of the Sacrament of Marriage as instituted by God. Remember that the Devil works by corrupting what is holy. I am not implicating homosexuals, but heterosexuals (Britney, for example) who also debase marriage into something that, in your own words, "is a pale transfiguration of the Sacrament".

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Raptor, your on a roll today! Very nice!

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

You're right. Civil marriage is not the Sacramental marriage of the Church. And you're right, it is not an attack on your marriage. But, same sex marriages are such a radical transformation of the base idea of the marriage (that is, the joining of man and woman as 'one flesh') that it shouldn't even be called a 'marriage'.

The allowance of same-sex marriages would be an unstoppable promotion of the homosexual form of sex, which would further add to the debasement of our society, implying that pleasure and not procreation is the primary goal of sex. While I admit that our society is already well into believing that, this is no reason to stop fighting against the tide.

Our society will not stop sinking into decadence by us doing nothing about it, believing that it does not attack us. If you will not defend the idea of Marriage for the sake of your own marriage, then defend it for the sake of the Sacrament of Marriage as instituted by God. Remember that the Devil works by corrupting what is holy. I am not implicating homosexuals, but heterosexuals (Britney, for example) who also debase marriage into something that, in your own words, "is a pale transfiguration of the Sacrament".

According the Humane Vitae, unity and procreation are co-equal goals of sex in marriage. I believe unity as at least some component of pleasure in it.

As for the rest, I am an American. I believe in equal pretection under law, I believe and defend this for my own sake. In the words of Saint Thomas More:

If you cut down all the laws chasing the devil, then what is to protect you after you have cut down the last law and the devil turn back on you ?

The Volstad act outlawed alcohol consumption in the USA between 1920 and 1932. The Catholic Church got a exemption under the Bill of Rights because we have right to practice our religion as we see fit. We use wine in our services, we got access to it despite the Consitutional Amendment forbiding its use.

How can we possibly argue against an exception for a religion that would marry homosexuals ? What to prevent such a religion from starting this practice ?

A constitution amendment is just not going work here.

 

[raptor13]

Unity has more to do with complementary nature of man and woman than with pleasure. The homosexual form of sex is a violation of 'unity'. After all, are two men having sexual relations is a complementary union?

And obviously, procreation in not present in the homosexual form of sex. Therefore, both principles of the sexual activities in marriage would be violated if same sex marriage were to be allowed.

There are two kinds of law. There are laws made by man and then there is the Natural Law which is the supreme and universal principle from which all of our moral obligations are derived. Natural Law is created by God. They are NOT created by the state.

The consumption of alcohol is a man-made law and it is NOT against natural law. As I have stated before, same sex marriage IS. IF the Federal Marriage Protection Act is passed, a religion can marry homosexuals no more than the KKK can enslave blacks or Satanists sacrifice born babies in the name of religion.

 

[Debi1967]

This "legal recognition" would be wrong in the light of natural law, that is, that man was made for woman and woman was made for man. Natural law is the rule of conduct which is prescribed to us by the Creator in the constitution of the nature with which He has endowed us. This is the highest of laws because it is not determined by man, but by God, and is therefore immutable. Natural law is not up for debate.

Therefore, by implementing the Federal Marriage Protection Act, our Constitution would only be enforcing a law that is naturally there in the first place.

Sorry just checked this and I concur
Very well said Raptor 13

 

[Cosmic Charlie]

IF the Federal Marriage Protection Act is passed, a religion can marry homosexuals no more than the KKK can enslave blacks or Satanists sacrifice born babies in the name of religion.

Well, thank you for making my point.

First, the Satanist have never asked to sacrifice babies and the KKK hasn't even asked for status as a religion. But....

Voodoo priests sacifice animals in public against cruelity to animal statutes regularly and American Indians smoke peyote for religious reasons despite the war on drugs.

In my country, people have the right to worship as they please and the Natural Law is, unfortunately, not arguable in Federal Appelate court.

If some splinter group of the American Episcapal Church decides to start marrying homosexuals (a senario that seems not entirely unlikely) we as Catholics can scream our christian lungs out. But as Americans, we have to let go. Because if we restrict them the next thing you know John Ascroft will be arresting priests for serving liquor to minors. (and I personally wouldn't put it past him)