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?
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.
The US gives a civil meaning to marriage not given by the Chruch.
Oh good, I've never seen THIS argument before.Ok, horse, we should also allow for Bigamy...
Or inappropriate behavior with animals, or pedophilia...
THEY are ALL preferences.
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.
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
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?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".
QFT.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 ?
I think it is 80-90% of homosexual 'relationships' have infidelity.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.
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
Oh for the love...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.
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.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.