|
Same-sex marriage?
|
|
Topic Started: Mar 9 2013, 10:44 AM (261 Views)
|
|
Quasimodo
|
Mar 9 2013, 10:44 AM
Post #1
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,135
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Quote:
-
http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2013/0106/cardinal.aspx
The Cardinal’s Column Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I. Email Print January 6 - 19, 2013 Legislation creating "same-sex" marriage: What's at stake?
At the beginning of the New Year, 2013, a law is being proposed in the General Assembly to change the legal definition of marriage in Illinois to accommodate those of the same sex who wish to “marry” one another. In this discussion, the Church will be portrayed as “anti-gay,” which is a difficult position to be in, particularly when families and the Church herself love those of their members who are same-sex oriented. What’s at stake in this legislative proposal and in the Church’s teaching on marriage?
Basically, the nature of marriage is not a religious question. Marriage comes to us from nature. Christ sanctifies marriage as a sacrament for the baptized, giving it significance beyond its natural reality; the State protects marriage because it is essential to family and to the common good of society. But neither Church nor State invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.
Nature and Nature’s God, to use the expression in the Declaration of Independence of our country, give the human species two mutually complementary sexes, able to transmit life through what the law has hitherto recognized as a marital union. Consummated sexual relations between a man and a woman are ideally based on mutual love and must always be based on mutual consent, if they are genuinely human actions. But no matter how strong a friendship or deep a love between persons of the same sex might be, it is physically impossible for two men, or two women, to consummate a marital union. Even in civil law, non-consummation of a marriage is reason for annulment.
Sexual relations between a man and a woman are naturally and necessarily different from sexual relations between same-sex partners. This truth is part of the common sense of the human race. It was true before the existence of either Church or State, and it will continue to be true when there is no State of Illinois and no United States of America. A proposal to change this truth about marriage in civil law is less a threat to religion than it is an affront to human reason and the common good of society. It means we are all to pretend to accept something we know is physically impossible. The Legislature might just as well repeal the law of gravity.
What is, then, at stake in this proposed legislation? What is certainly at stake is the natural relationship between parents and children. Children, even if they are loved and raised by those who are not their biological parents, want to know who their parents are, who are their natural family. The fascination with genealogical tables and the opening of adoption records are evidence of this desire to find oneself in a biological succession of generations. No honest “study” has disproved what we all know. Stable marriage between a husband and wife has safeguarded their children, surrounding them with familial love and creating the secure foundation for human flourishing. This natural desire, already weakened in a seemingly more and more promiscuous society, will no longer be privileged in civil law. It will be no more “normal” than any other “family” arrangement. If the nature of marriage is destroyed in civil law, the natural family goes with it.
As well, those who know the difference between marriage and same-sex arrangements will be regarded as bigots. This is where the religious question does come into play. Including “religious freedom” in the title of the proposed law recognizes that religious teaching based on natural truths will now be considered evidence of illegal discrimination and will be punishable by law. The title of the law is ironic if not disingenuous. Those who know that marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the sake of family will carry a social opprobrium that will make them unwelcome on most university faculties and on the editorial boards of major newspapers. They will be excluded from the entertainment industry. Their children and grandchildren will be taught in the government schools that their parents are unenlightened, the equivalent of misguided racists. Laws teach; they express accepted social values and most people go along with societal trends, even when majority opinion espouses immoral causes.
The legalization of abortion is a good example of how an immoral procedure that kills babies in their mother’s womb is first permitted legally in limited circumstances as a necessary evil and then moves in forty years to become a condition of human freedom, necessary to be preserved at all costs, an essential part of “reproductive health care.” We are on the same trajectory with marriage. Model laws creating same-sex unions as civil marriage have been part of legal education for decades. The media have engaged in a campaign on this issue for almost as long a time, desensitizing people to accept as normal something that had previously been recognized as problematic. We are at the end of a tremendous propaganda effort by those secure in their conviction that they are at the cutting edge of human development. But what we’re seeing is not particularly new. Two thousand years ago, the Church was born in a society with the values now being advanced as necessary for a fair society today.
Why this law? Since all the strictly legal consequences of natural marriage are already given to same-sex partners in civil unions, what is now at stake in this question for some homosexually oriented people is self-respect and full societal acceptance of their sexual activities. Because fair-minded people cannot approve of hatred or disdain of others, “same-sex marriage” becomes for many a well-intentioned and good-hearted response to help others be happy. But marriage is a public commitment with a responsibility that involves more than the personal happiness of two adults. Inventing “civil rights” that contradict natural rights does not solve a problem of personal unhappiness.
Some religious people have framed their acceptance of this proposed law as an exemplification of compassion, justice and inclusion. As attitudes, these sentiments have been used to justify everything from eugenics to euthanasia. If religion is to be more than sentiment, the moral content of these words has to be filled in from the truths of what human reason understands and God has revealed. Same-sex unions are incompatible with the teaching that has kept the Church united to her Lord for two thousand years.
The Catholic Church in this Archdiocese has consistently condemned violence or hatred of homosexually oriented men and women. Good pastoral practice encourages families to accept their children, no matter their sexual orientation, and not break relationships with them. The Archdiocese offers Mass and other spiritual help to those who live their homosexuality anonymously (Courage groups) and also to those who want to be publicly part of the gay community (AGLO, which celebrates its twenty-fifth anniversary this year). People live out their sexual identity in different fashions, but the Church consistently offers the means to live chastely in all circumstances, as the love of God both obliges and makes possible.
Finally, what is at stake in this proposed legislation was the subject of a few sentences in our Holy Father’s recent end of year address to his co-workers in Rome. Citing the Chief Rabbi of France, Gilles Bernheim, who recently spoke to the impact of the “philosophy of gender” as it affects proposed marriage laws in France, Pope Benedict commented: “The manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be. Man and woman in their created state as complementary versions of what it means to be human are disputed. But if there is no pre-ordained duality of man and women in creation, then neither is the family any longer a reality established by creation. Likewise, the child has lost the place he had occupied hitherto and the dignity pertaining to him. Rabbi Bernheim shows that now, perforce, from being a subject of right, the child has become an object to which people have a right and which they have a right to obtain. When the freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God, as the image of God at the core of his being. The defense of the family is about man himself. And it becomes clear that when God is denied, human dignity also disappears. Whoever defends God is defending man.”
That is what’s at stake now. Despite the seeming inevitability of “same-sex marriage” legislation, each responsible citizen should consider what he or she must now do, as a lame duck legislature, many of whose members are no longer accountable to their constituents, prepares to make a decision that will have enormous consequences for everyone. God bless you.
|
|
|
| |
|
Toast
|
Mar 9 2013, 01:52 PM
Post #2
|
|
- Posts:
- 1,671
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #490
- Joined:
- Oct 7, 2011
|
I am very much against contorting the definition of the word "marriage" in order to please a few.
I am in favor of creating the institution of "Pairage" - a legal union between any two people (same-sex or hetero) giving all "spouse" type benefits and responsibilities (inheritance, next-of-kin standing, dependency for insurance benefits and tax purposes, providing for spouse's health and welfare, etc.) to the partners therein.
It would create a whole new level of licensure which would please the bureaucrat. Spouse1 and Spouse2 would be listed on the license. Either one would be legally designated "Head of Household", or if neither, then equal "Co-Head". For those objecting to traditional marriage, "pairage" eliminates religious connotations which would please the atheists, patriarchy which would please the feminists, and the perceived inferior relationship status of "civil union" terminology which would please the same-sex couple. Pairage, once entered into by some kind of civil commitment ceremony pleasing the Judge or Justice of the Peace, would only be un-done by legal dissolution, which would please the attorney.
The social question then would not be "Are you married?", but "Are you Paired?"
And for those of us who like our traditional marriages, we will keep them thank you very much.
|
|
|
| |
|
kbp
|
Mar 9 2013, 05:04 PM
Post #3
|
|
- Posts:
- 52,050
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
I say just keep government completely out of marriage.
|
|
|
| |
|
kbp
|
Mar 9 2013, 05:19 PM
Post #4
|
|
- Posts:
- 52,050
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/banished-christian-rockers-return-to-campus/
|
|
|
| |
|
cks
|
Mar 9 2013, 05:43 PM
Post #5
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,677
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #445
- Joined:
- Mar 1, 2009
|
It is in the interest of the state that there be a regulation of civil union that holds each partner in that union to a commitment. I have long felt that the European civil service should be adopted here for anyone intent on living together. Marriage would continue to be a sacrament or religious commitment. It could then be up to each denomination to decide within its own doctrine whether it would sanctify same sex unions or not. Either way, the state grants the license (one could not have the religious ceremony unless first there was the civil ceremony).
The state could take its financial cut - perhaps making it more expensive; require a more extensive waiting period; or whatever it wanted. The beauty in this is that it does not require a religion to recognize something that it finds anathema to its doctrine. Perhaps the state would then make divorce more difficult - that would be fine with me as well (especially more difficult where children are involved).
|
|
|
| |
|
kbp
|
Mar 9 2013, 05:58 PM
Post #6
|
|
- Posts:
- 52,050
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
Too much "STATE" in that plan for "MARRIAGE"!!
- CKS
-
It is in the interest of the state that there be a regulation of civil union that holds each partner in that union to a commitment. I have long felt that the European civil service should be adopted here for anyone intent on living together. Marriage would continue to be a sacrament or religious commitment. It could then be up to each denomination to decide within its own doctrine whether it would sanctify same sex unions or not. Either way, the state grants the license (one could not have the religious ceremony unless first there was the civil ceremony).
The state could take its financial cut - perhaps making it more expensive; require a more extensive waiting period; or whatever it wanted. The beauty in this is that it does not require a religion to recognize something that it finds anathema to its doctrine. Perhaps the state would then make divorce more difficult - that would be fine with me as well (especially more difficult where children are involved).
|
|
|
| |
|
cks
|
Mar 10 2013, 05:54 AM
Post #7
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,677
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #445
- Joined:
- Mar 1, 2009
|
- kbp
- Mar 9 2013, 05:58 PM
Too much "STATE" in that plan for "MARRIAGE"!! - CKS
-
It is in the interest of the state that there be a regulation of civil union that holds each partner in that union to a commitment. I have long felt that the European civil service should be adopted here for anyone intent on living together. Marriage would continue to be a sacrament or religious commitment. It could then be up to each denomination to decide within its own doctrine whether it would sanctify same sex unions or not. Either way, the state grants the license (one could not have the religious ceremony unless first there was the civil ceremony).
The state could take its financial cut - perhaps making it more expensive; require a more extensive waiting period; or whatever it wanted. The beauty in this is that it does not require a religion to recognize something that it finds anathema to its doctrine. Perhaps the state would then make divorce more difficult - that would be fine with me as well (especially more difficult where children are involved).
Perhaps. However, the state involvement in marriage dates back to the time of Caesar Augustus. Concerned especially that members of the patrician class (though also the plebians as well) were engaging in licentious affairs and were not reproducing - thus ensuring that there would be Roman citizens (at this time the only way that one was a citizen of the empire was either to be Romans by birth or to be a member of a family to whom citizenship had been conferred) to govern the empire, Augustus instituted special laws regulating marriage, These have been the basis of marriage laws ever since. (Marriage determined legitimacy, thus inheritance rights and it also required that parents assume responsibility for their children).
It is, I believe, in the state's interest to regulate to some degree civil unions. It is the state that can hold a parent responsible for the basic needs of a child - the Church can only in a moral sense but it has no power of enforcement.
|
|
|
| |
|
kbp
|
Mar 10 2013, 11:06 AM
Post #8
|
|
- Posts:
- 52,050
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #20
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- cks
- Mar 10 2013, 05:54 AM
- kbp
- Mar 9 2013, 05:58 PM
Too much "STATE" in that plan for "MARRIAGE"!! - CKS
-
It is in the interest of the state that there be a regulation of civil union that holds each partner in that union to a commitment. I have long felt that the European civil service should be adopted here for anyone intent on living together. Marriage would continue to be a sacrament or religious commitment. It could then be up to each denomination to decide within its own doctrine whether it would sanctify same sex unions or not. Either way, the state grants the license (one could not have the religious ceremony unless first there was the civil ceremony).
The state could take its financial cut - perhaps making it more expensive; require a more extensive waiting period; or whatever it wanted. The beauty in this is that it does not require a religion to recognize something that it finds anathema to its doctrine. Perhaps the state would then make divorce more difficult - that would be fine with me as well (especially more difficult where children are involved).
Perhaps. However, the state involvement in marriage dates back to the time of Caesar Augustus. Concerned especially that members of the patrician class (though also the plebians as well) were engaging in licentious affairs and were not reproducing - thus ensuring that there would be Roman citizens (at this time the only way that one was a citizen of the empire was either to be Romans by birth or to be a member of a family to whom citizenship had been conferred) to govern the empire, Augustus instituted special laws regulating marriage, These have been the basis of marriage laws ever since. (Marriage determined legitimacy, thus inheritance rights and it also required that parents assume responsibility for their children). It is, I believe, in the state's interest to regulate to some degree civil unions. It is the state that can hold a parent responsible for the basic needs of a child - the Church can only in a moral sense but it has no power of enforcement. Just speaking for myself, I did not get married to benefit the state.
I believe the laws cover most issues that would arise if cohabitants have a child to care for or an inheritance to distribute ...with a few extra thrown in if you want to call the relationship a marriage. Since the state feels they hold the authority to regulate the rules of marriage, it appears as if they working on changing the perception of what a "determined legitimacy" is.
IOW, they'll let you know what your perception of same-sex marriage is to be!
Edited by kbp, Mar 10 2013, 11:07 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
cks
|
Mar 10 2013, 11:58 AM
Post #9
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,677
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #445
- Joined:
- Mar 1, 2009
|
- kbp
- Mar 10 2013, 11:06 AM
- cks
- Mar 10 2013, 05:54 AM
- kbp
- Mar 9 2013, 05:58 PM
Too much "STATE" in that plan for "MARRIAGE"!! - CKS
-
It is in the interest of the state that there be a regulation of civil union that holds each partner in that union to a commitment. I have long felt that the European civil service should be adopted here for anyone intent on living together. Marriage would continue to be a sacrament or religious commitment. It could then be up to each denomination to decide within its own doctrine whether it would sanctify same sex unions or not. Either way, the state grants the license (one could not have the religious ceremony unless first there was the civil ceremony).
The state could take its financial cut - perhaps making it more expensive; require a more extensive waiting period; or whatever it wanted. The beauty in this is that it does not require a religion to recognize something that it finds anathema to its doctrine. Perhaps the state would then make divorce more difficult - that would be fine with me as well (especially more difficult where children are involved).
Perhaps. However, the state involvement in marriage dates back to the time of Caesar Augustus. Concerned especially that members of the patrician class (though also the plebians as well) were engaging in licentious affairs and were not reproducing - thus ensuring that there would be Roman citizens (at this time the only way that one was a citizen of the empire was either to be Romans by birth or to be a member of a family to whom citizenship had been conferred) to govern the empire, Augustus instituted special laws regulating marriage, These have been the basis of marriage laws ever since. (Marriage determined legitimacy, thus inheritance rights and it also required that parents assume responsibility for their children). It is, I believe, in the state's interest to regulate to some degree civil unions. It is the state that can hold a parent responsible for the basic needs of a child - the Church can only in a moral sense but it has no power of enforcement.
Just speaking for myself, I did not get married to benefit the state. I believe the laws cover most issues that would arise if cohabitants have a child to care for or an inheritance to distribute ...with a few extra thrown in if you want to call the relationship a marriage. Since the state feels they hold the authority to regulate the rules of marriage, it appears as if they working on changing the perception of what a "determined legitimacy" is. IOW, they'll let you know what your perception of same-sex marriage is to be! kbp:
I too,did not marry for the convenience of the state. But, in an era (time of Augustus....and in subsequent periods) where the birth rate was low and questions of property were very important, one can understand - though perhaps not agree - why Augustus took the steps that he did. Keep in mind as well that until relatively modern times (the late 18th and the 19th centuries), marriage was a contract between two families, more often than not closely related. The contract involved the transfer of property - the ideal situation was one where the property was kept within the extended family structure.
Just as I did not marry for the convenience of the state - nor do I remain married for the state's convenience. I have seen within my own family (siblings) the effects of both divorce on children and the decision to have children without the benefit of marriage (nor for that mattter any intent to marry). It has not been pretty for the most part. I consider myself very fortunate. Mr. cks and I have had a long and happy marriage - I hope that we will be fortunate like both his parents and mine to celebrate fifty years of married life and even more so sixty + years like his grandparents. A good marriage is always a work in progress - both partners must be willing to put in the effort. Unfortunately, too often in our throw-away society, it is easier to break up and discard a partner than it is to stay together. It is for this reason that we have constantly emphasized to our children that it is good to date for a long time and to spend time a part - communicating by letters is always good - to make certain that there is a friendship that forms the bedrock of the marriage.
|
|
|
| |
|
chatham
|
Mar 10 2013, 01:00 PM
Post #10
|
|
- Posts:
- 28,172
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #308
- Joined:
- May 2, 2008
|
The early Catholic church recognized same sex unions. One of the reason they became so violent against it was because it did not increase members or-numbers to become a dominant political force. The early written bible mentions same sex interactions only a couple of time in the laws. Again that was because if the Israelites needed to increase their numbers for conquest, then they needed numbers or newborns. It was not really until religious migration was directed toward American that homosexual behavior was punished the way it is.
If one wants to talk about what is marriage, then ask any muslim what marriage is to them. Any good mormon will tell you about their early history of marriage until American pressure became unbearable and they changed their laws. Having multiple wives means you can have lots of kids. Having lots of kids increases your numbers. Having increased numbers means you can dominate. Having domination means you rule the world. Another reason the popes do not accept birth control. Another reason religion centers on homosexuals as being deviant. Its all a numbers game.
the state has gotten involved with modern day marriage issues because it makes the state a lot of money. The state doesnt give a hoot who gets married as long as it makes them money.
Investigate history for yourselves. Jmoo
|
|
|
| |
|
chatham
|
Mar 10 2013, 01:06 PM
Post #11
|
|
- Posts:
- 28,172
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #308
- Joined:
- May 2, 2008
|
The early religions did not recognize divorce. It was very difficult and if it was granted one became an outcast. Cause of divorce was usually the womans fault. If one could not get a divorce then one killed their partner. By the way that still happens today. The church eventually gave out divorces and annulments because they got a lot of money doing those things. It was not the state that married people back when, it was the church and you stayed married forever whether you liked it or not. And you did not get to choose your mate. It was not until the catholic church started to break up in the middle ages that their rules were altered for convenience. Once they got rid of the pope then people like henry the 8th could make the rules. Martin luther got it pretty much right when he protested. We have to remember that it is pretty much modern day history that the state, as we know it, took over what the church itself did.
|
|
|
| |
|
comelately
|
Mar 10 2013, 06:05 PM
Post #12
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,566
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #479
- Joined:
- Jun 24, 2009
|
- Toast
- Mar 9 2013, 01:52 PM
I am very much against contorting the definition of the word "marriage" in order to please a few.
I am in favor of creating the institution of "Pairage" - a legal union between any two people (same-sex or hetero) giving all "spouse" type benefits and responsibilities (inheritance, next-of-kin standing, dependency for insurance benefits and tax purposes, providing for spouse's health and welfare, etc.) to the partners therein.
It would create a whole new level of licensure which would please the bureaucrat. Spouse1 and Spouse2 would be listed on the license. Either one would be legally designated "Head of Household", or if neither, then equal "Co-Head". For those objecting to traditional marriage, "pairage" eliminates religious connotations which would please the atheists, patriarchy which would please the feminists, and the perceived inferior relationship status of "civil union" terminology which would please the same-sex couple. Pairage, once entered into by some kind of civil commitment ceremony pleasing the Judge or Justice of the Peace, would only be un-done by legal dissolution, which would please the attorney.
The social question then would not be "Are you married?", but "Are you Paired?"
And for those of us who like our traditional marriages, we will keep them thank you very much. Yesterday, I was at a high-school play (my youngest daughter is in high school). The amount of pro-homosexual propaganda is staggering. Perhaps we had it right 50 years ago: at least schools did not indulge in open promotion of perverted lifestyles - and as a bonus, the issue of same-sex marriage did not exist - no "pairage", no trouble, no nothing! There was no AIDS either...
Since the Biblical times, most (all?) viable societies took a very definite view of homosexuality. In the last 40 years or so, we have been "progressing", at least in the West. Were all these people "wrong"? Is the current politically correct crowd "right"? Seems unlikely...
|
|
|
| |
|
cks
|
Mar 10 2013, 06:14 PM
Post #13
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,677
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #445
- Joined:
- Mar 1, 2009
|
- chatham
- Mar 10 2013, 01:06 PM
The early religions did not recognize divorce. It was very difficult and if it was granted one became an outcast. Cause of divorce was usually the womans fault. If one could not get a divorce then one killed their partner. By the way that still happens today. The church eventually gave out divorces and annulments because they got a lot of money doing those things. It was not the state that married people back when, it was the church and you stayed married forever whether you liked it or not. And you did not get to choose your mate. It was not until the catholic church started to break up in the middle ages that their rules were altered for convenience. Once they got rid of the pope then people like henry the 8th could make the rules. Martin luther got it pretty much right when he protested. We have to remember that it is pretty much modern day history that the state, as we know it, took over what the church itself did. It was in the Protestant states that rulers saw it in their interest to regulate marriage - by stipulating minimum age for marriage, having the father's permission, etc. The Catholics then saw the wisdom of that as well. One can look at marriage laws in England to see how it developed that separated the civil from the religious (It was in the late 18th century that this occurred - if memory serves me correctly).
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|