Gay Marriage Pioneer

[cathoaholicliz]

I see. Your position is that Nancy Reagan exists, just her "marriage" to Ronnie did not. Thank you for that clarification.

Whether that's true or not up to me that's between and Ron and Nancy and God. I didn't know the folks. I was born in the late 80s. By the time I was old enough to know who the married couple in the white house were it was a pervert and his crazy wife.

All I know is two men cannot be married in the eyes of God. That's in the CCC and the Bible and if you don't like it take it up with God, the Pope, a thousand or more saints, or align yourself with atheism. I can't tell you what to believe but I can tell you this is the wrong church for you if you don't agree with it.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Typical - you can't defend the idea that "gay marriage" doesn't exist because there is no such thing, so let's divert the conversation to Nancy Reagan. I'll have to remember that tactic.

 

[KatherineS]

Typical - you can't defend the idea that "gay marriage" doesn't exist because there is no such thing, so let's divert the conversation to Nancy Reagan. I'll have to remember that tactic.

I see. Its not about what is a true marriage, it is about gay-bashing.

We can privately believe that there is no such thing as divorce and re-marriage, but we should be polite and keep quite about it. Gays, on the other hand, are open territory.

Well, I can;t accept that as the Catholic faith.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

But.....but......what about Charlie Weaver???????

 

[KatherineS]

Those who bash gays but try to suppress Catholic teaching on divorce do not honor the Church;s teachings.

 

[Antigone]

Whether that's true or not up to me that's between and Ron and Nancy and God. I didn't know the folks.

So then you agree it should be up to gay couples to decide if gay marriage exists?

Typical - you can't defend the idea that "gay marriage" doesn't exist because there is no such thing, so let's divert the conversation to Nancy Reagan. I'll have to remember that tactic.

That tactic is known as a "joke". Having seen your posts I suspect you are unfamiliar with them. I urge you to check them out. They can be quite good.

My government says gay marriage exists. It has existed since 1996. I'm still waiting for society to collapse. I was told it'd happen but they're really taking their time. Darn those procrastinating gays.

The church defines a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The state defines marriage as a union between two people. I know the church likes to monopolise marriage but you can get married without interference from the church. Are all those heterosexual couples who do so in a sham marriage too? Because I'm sure they'd like to know.

 

[steve_bakr]

Whether that's true or not up to me that's between and Ron and Nancy and God. I didn't know the folks. I was born in the late 80s. By the time I was old enough to know who the married couple in the white house were it was a pervert and his crazy wife.

All I know is two men cannot be married in the eyes of God. That's in the CCC and the Bible and if you don't like it take it up with God, the Pope, a thousand or more saints, or align yourself with atheism. I can't tell you what to believe but I can tell you this is the wrong church for you if you don't agree with it.

According to the Church, a valid Christian marriage is between a man and a woman.

Civil law may call same-sex unions "marriage" if it is so decided through the legal democratic process.

There is a difference between a Christian marriage and a civil marriage, although the Church may accept civil marriages that meet its criteria.

But the Church doesn't have a monopoly on the word "marriage." Instead of claiming ownership of that word, I think we should begin to speak of a Christian marriage, although some churches will also perform same-sex marriages in states that allow it.

 

[Ave Maria]

May he rest in peace.

That said, I do condemn gay "marriage" and any other legal recognition of homosexual relationships.

 

[Ave Maria]

There is no such thing as a "gay marriage" in God's eyes. Its similar to female priests, they don't exist in God's eyes. It is impossible for two men or two women to marry in the eyes of God just as it is impossible for a woman to be ordained a priest or bishop in God's eyes.

 

[Genersis]

...
That said, I do condemn gay "marriage" and any other legal recognition of homosexual relationships.

Why?
I understand it may not exist in your theology's eyes, but why condemn it being legally recognised?

 

[KatherineS]

There is no such thing as a "gay marriage" in God's eyes. Its similar to female priests, they don't exist in God's eyes. It is impossible for two men or two women to marry in the eyes of God just as it is impossible for a woman to be ordained a priest or bishop in God's eyes.

Just as thre is no such thing as ending one marriage and moving into another. In God's eyes Nancy Reagan was not a wife but a concubine.

 

[Wolseley]

the Church doesn't have a monopoly on the word "marriage." Instead of claiming ownership of that word, I think we should begin to speak of a Christian marriage, although some churches will also perform same-sex marriages in states that allow it.

I think a better term might be "sacramentally valid marriage". That would not only exclude the homosexual "unions" performed by the state but by various non-Catholic bodies as well.

 

[zaida]

I completely get Katharine's point, with nancy reagan, as an example. People get so riled up about the homosexuality issue, and yet don't about other forms of relationshiop which the Church thinks is sinful - nancy and ron, and all the other folks divorced and re-married, all heterosexuals living together, etc. And the reason people over focus on homosexual unions is really due to prejudice. If people think its sinful for the state to validate homosexual relationships, then why not stop the state from marrying two divorced heterosexual people? Where is the big broo-ha-ha about that? If Catholics were consistent they would fight that just as much - but they don't - they quietly accept it, even if un-approving.

I say, let the state be the state and let the Church be the Church - they can have two different standards of what they recognize, just as they do with divorce situations.

 

[WarriorAngel]

It's called adultery... and again, the world decided that too was ok.
No one here - that i have seen - has condoned the practice of remarriage.

However; the Church has canon law to define what is a marriage and what is not per the day of the marriage.

Was Ron and his first wife married with the right form? Dont know.
I do know - his first wife was non religious - and so likely didnt marry in a Christian Church.
She also said - her words - that she married him because it was Hollywood. And she had married others after him.
[according to canon law - her intent was ill conceived for a long standing marriage - and likely would be annulled]

She has since converted to the Catholic Church and so far as i know - wont remarry anyone. But she said Ronald was a wonderful man.

NOW - putting in practice - the canon law - was their marriage real? No.

So - on to another more 'real' subject.

Gay unions are against nature [which was made by God] and against God - so even in the legal definition - they do nothing to strengthen a nation.

The odds of a married man and woman not having children - fairly low. [sterility is usually something they seek to overcome]
Odds of gay unions having children - 100% impossible. By definition - each of the couple participates in that child's DNA.

Nations are weakened by lack of offspring...so it does not help economically or militarily. [which are the strength marks of a country]

'Gay marriage' does not exist.
Marriage is to procreate - and why states recognize marriage in the 1st place - for future generations and to benefit the children of the union.

You wont be getting any of that from gay partners. Nada - zilch.

Argument is moot.

 

[Michie]

I completely get Katharine's point, with nancy reagan, as an example. People get so riled up about the homosexuality issue, and yet don't about other forms of relationshiop which the Church thinks is sinful - nancy and ron, and all the other folks divorced and re-married, all heterosexuals living together, etc. And the reason people over focus on homosexual unions is really due to prejudice. If people think its sinful for the state to validate homosexual relationships, then why not stop the state from marrying two divorced heterosexual people? Where is the big broo-ha-ha about that? If Catholics were consistent they would fight that just as much - but they don't - they quietly accept it, even if un-approving.

I say, let the state be the state and let the Church be the Church - they can have two different standards of what they recognize, just as they do with divorce situations.

I think Katherine's point is partisian politics. It always is in my view anyway.

 

[zaida]

I think we are all arguing on different fronts. Your analysis - that likely nancy and ron didn't have a recognized or "real" marriage in the eyes of the church (and we are just using them as an example). My point is, you have never heard Catholics ranting and raving about it, or when Ron was running, did Catholics say "but he is likely in an illigitimate marriage and therefore living in sin"....none of that happened....yet if ronnie has been in a gay partnership, you would have heard about it.....so, we (as a culture) are inconsistent....my Priest says that the sin of two practicing gay people is no worse or better than the sin of two straight unmarried sexually active people (which probably would have been Ron and Nancy in the eyes of the church)...but Catholics, as a whole, "treat" these relationships differently....my question is, why? Warrior - I could be wrong, but your post seems to imply you think gay relationships are more wrong than adulterous straight ones, or two heterosexuals "living together" (but tell me if I'm wrong)....I'm asking in good faith - because I honestly think "we" (as a group) apply a double standard.

 

[zaida]

Hi Michie - I do think this whole topic transcends partisan politics - at least in the conventional democrat/republican camps. I know people in both parties, and in other ways, at all ends of the spectrum, who have varying views.....I do think its an important topic, as volatile as it gets.

 

[Michie]

Hi Michie - I do think this whole topic transcends partisan politics - at least in the conventional democrat/republican camps. I know people in both parties, and in other ways, at all ends of the spectrum, who have varying views.....I do think its an important topic, as volatile as it gets.

If Nancy & Ron were Catholic, you might have a point. The man that is now lost in the OP was Catholic at one time.

This is just another excuse to debate politics in the main forum.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I think we are all arguing on different fronts. Your analysis - that likely nancy and ron didn't have a recognized or "real" marriage in the eyes of the church (and we are just using them as an example). My point is, you have never heard Catholics ranting and raving about it, or when Ron was running, did Catholics say "but he is likely in an illigitimate marriage and therefore living in sin"....none of that happened....yet if ronnie has been in a gay partnership, you would have heard about it.....so, we (as a culture) are inconsistent....my Priest says that the sin of two practicing gay people is no worse or better than the sin of two straight unmarried sexually active people (which probably would have been Ron and Nancy in the eyes of the church)...but Catholics, as a whole, "treat" these relationships differently....my question is, why? Warrior - I could be wrong, but your post seems to imply you think gay relationships are more wrong than adulterous straight ones, or two heterosexuals "living together" (but tell me if I'm wrong)....I'm asking in good faith - because I honestly think "we" (as a group) apply a double standard.

The point is - only the Bishops can discern if a man and woman have a valid marriage after the evidence.

Without which - the average citizen has no info - it is impossible to discern if a remarriage is valid or not.

According to the 1st wife - she didnt marry Ron for a long term - she married him because she was young and it was Hollywood where ppl married all the time.

Does that sound valid?
I might study canon law next year - but the basics are easy.

So since most - and none here did know - the particulars [til after Ronald died - his first wife chimed in because she was sick of him being attacked for remarrying] we cannot discern the validity of one's marriage - we can discern however; if they are man and wife - they are more viably and justly allowed to be married than 2 ppl of the same sex who do nothing either in the secular way nor the religious to continue future generations that are - truly an asset - to a nation.

As i said before - countries recognize married men and women because they procreate future generations - and the point of the marriage in the world's eyes for a healthy and stable childhood for the children.

Again, you arent going to get this - ever - in a million more years between sexes of the same gender.

 

[TheOtherHockeyMom]

So - on to another more 'real' subject.

Gay unions are against nature [which was made by God] and against God - so even in the legal definition - they do nothing to strengthen a nation.

The odds of a married man and woman not having children - fairly low. [sterility is usually something they seek to overcome]
Odds of gay unions having children - 100% impossible. By definition - each of the couple participates in that child's DNA.

Nations are weakened by lack of offspring...so it does not help economically or militarily. [which are the strength marks of a country]

'Gay marriage' does not exist.
Marriage is to procreate - and why states recognize marriage in the 1st place - for future generations and to benefit the children of the union.

You wont be getting any of that from gay partners. Nada - zilch.

Argument is moot.

It seems to always end up being that the problem with gay marriage is that it doesn't create more little soldiers to go fight for the country.

Get to breeding people, make our country strong again!