Gay Marriage. (Christian response Only Please)

JimiTime

Sorry to bring up another thread homosexual related stuff, but......

It seems to me that Christians are in two camps on this topic:

1. Homosexuality is wrong and should not be legitimised/normalised by us in any way.

2. Homosexuality is wrong, but I back their right to civil union. However, I stop short of approving of gay marriage.

Now, I'm wondering. Why is it, that you would support civil union, but not marriage? Is it just because you hold marriage as a sacread thing, or is there a practical reason you would be against gay marriage?

The Smurf

I am against giving homosexual 'unions' any special status.

The civil law should support the Law of God. But since we want to deny God from our society, then we could perhaps say that the civil law should support the natural law. But then we have people who deny any sort of natural law. You could say then I suppose that the civil law should protect the common good. But then we have the 'common good' redefined according to modern preferences, political lobbying and diversity.

Blah whatever. We are obviously not interested in God in this country any more. At least the government isn't. That is why they have rushed and bullied through this legislation.

As regards 'gay marriage' that is an impossibility. Marriage is between one woman and one man.

It does nobody any favours to encourage them to engage in soul-destroying behaviours. Whether we like it or not, the law does encourage or discourage behaviours. One might think of murder. It is against the law. Might we expect an increase in murders if in the morning it was no longer considered a crime by the state?

Laws should encourage good, moral behaviour. Recognition of 'gay union' of any kind only serves to create the illusion that this is something that is acceptable and good, and thus we can expect a greater acceptance of such things in society.

I should say that I am also against the idea of co-habiting heterosexual couples getting any special recognition in law either. Of course the issue becomes more complicated once children appear on the scene, as they have their own rights which must be protected.

The interesting little sting in the new legislation is that heterosexual couples will indeed be affected - by living together for a set period, they too will have rights. So perhaps folks might consider this before 'shacking up'? Maybe do something else - LIKE GET MARRIED! And not on a whim either.

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

1. Homosexuality is wrong and should not be legitimised/normalised by us in any way

2. Homosexuality is wrong, but I back their right to civil union. However, I stop short of approving of gay marriage.

Now, I'm wondering. Why is it, that you would support civil union, but not marriage? Is it just because you hold marriage as a sacred thing, or is there a practical reason you would be against gay marriage?

My own view on this seems to be settling in the following way

1) 'The World' is God-hating and isn't subject to the Law of God (in the sense of subjecting itself to the Law of God. Therefore it is unreasonable to expect The World to conform to God's will in this or any other issue. It is also unreasonable to try to impose God's Law on the world.

It is to be expected that the World will formulate its law contrary to the Law of God in many ways and this, the tending towards homosexual marriage (a California court just pronounced for gay marriage) is par for the course. It has done so previously and will do so again.

2) Christianity isn't Christendom. It is not appropriate that Christians bunch together to form political unions on a par with say the gay and lesbian lobby groups so as to better impose their view on society. By all means express a view. By all means vote according to conscience. By all means opt not to marry gays in your church. But leave the politicising of Christianity alone

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry to bring up another thread homosexual related stuff, but......

I would support some sort of civil union with accompanying rights in the line of next of kin, inheritance, tax credits etc.

However I would always support the State recognising heterosexual marriage as the preferred option with better benefits, when it comes to kids, adoption, more tax breaks etc.

robinph

The Smurf wrote: »

The interesting little sting in the new legislation is that heterosexual couples will indeed be affected - by living together for a set period, they too will have rights. So perhaps folks might consider this before 'shacking up'? Maybe do something else - LIKE GET MARRIED! And not on a whim either.

Are you suggesting that there is something negative about heterosexual couples living together gaining some rights. What is the benefit between just living together and getting married.

JimiTime

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry to bring up another thread homosexual related stuff, but......

It seems to me that Christians are in two camps on this topic:

You forgot the christians out there who aren't against it

Fanny Cradock

JimiTime wrote: »

Sorry to bring up another thread homosexual related stuff, but......

It seems to me that Christians are in two camps on this topic:

1. Homosexuality is wrong and should not be legitimised/normalised by us in any way.

2. Homosexuality is wrong, but I back their right to civil union. However, I stop short of approving of gay marriage.

Now, I'm wondering. Why is it, that you would support civil union, but not marriage? Is it just because you hold marriage as a sacread thing, or is there a practical reason you would be against gay marriage?

Actually, there is at least other group to fit into that list: Those that think a committed homosexual relationship isn't wrong. Unbelievable? recently ran a discussion between a Christian who was arguing the orthodox line - homosexual sex was incompatible with Christianity - and another couple of Christians (both gay) who contended that a committed gay relationship was compatible with Christianity. There was a follow up show the next week that explored the homosexuality and the church.

Morbert

The Smurf wrote: »

I am against giving homosexual 'unions' any special status.

The civil law should support the Law of God. But since we want to deny God from our society, then we could perhaps say that the civil law should support the natural law. But then we have people who deny any sort of natural law. You could say then I suppose that the civil law should protect the common good. But then we have the 'common good' redefined according to modern preferences, political lobbying and diversity.

Why should civil law support the law of God? I know very few Christians who would agree with you. God does not need enforcers on the ground, ensuring everyone is forced to freely choose to follow His will.

We have no choice but to follow natural laws. If you get hit by a bus, you cannot choose to flout the law of conservation of momentum. So I'm not sure how natural law is relevant to this discussion.

As for the law of the common good. That would take us to far from the topic (Which specifies Christian responses only).

Blah whatever. We are obviously not interested in God in this country any more. At least the government isn't. That is why they have rushed and bullied through this legislation.

As regards 'gay marriage' that is an impossibility. Marriage is between one woman and one man.

I don't think anyone is arguing that it is an impossibility. Instead the debate is over whether Marriage should be extended to beyond religious practises.

It does nobody any favours to encourage them to engage in soul-destroying behaviours. Whether we like it or not, the law does encourage or discourage behaviours. One might think of murder. It is against the law. Might we expect an increase in murders if in the morning it was no longer considered a crime by the state?

Not accepting Jesus is soul-destroying. Would you ban other religions?

Laws should encourage good, moral behaviour. Recognition of 'gay union' of any kind only serves to create the illusion that this is something that is acceptable and good, and thus we can expect a greater acceptance of such things in society.

Laws are not there to 'encourage good, moral behaviour'.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

We have no choice but to follow natural laws. If you get hit by a bus, you cannot choose to flout the law of conservation of momentum....

..with the problem being that different parts of the hit-by-a-bus body respond differently (velocity/vector wise) to said law

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

Laws are not there to 'encourage good, moral behaviour'.

You're getting to sound more and more like a Christian!

SonOfAdam

There are more opinions than just the 2 you offered, e.g I have no problem with it, they can do whatever they wish.

If we believe there are those who are redeemed by the blood of Jesus and there are those who are not, do we insist on subjecting the latter to laws that are alien to them ?

Morbert wrote:

Not accepting Jesus is soul-destroying

The only sinful life is a life lived independent and apart from God

The Smurf

Morbert wrote: »

Why should civil law support the law of God? I know very few Christians who would agree with you. [like a law banning abortion???] God does not need enforcers on the ground, ensuring everyone is forced to freely choose to follow His will. [wrong - God desires that we order society according to His will as best we can]

We have no choice but to follow natural laws. [wrong. see below] If you get hit by a bus, you cannot choose to flout the law of conservation of momentum. So I'm not sure how natural law is relevant to this discussion.

As for the law of the common good. That would take us to far from the topic (Which specifies Christian responses only).

I don't think anyone is arguing that it is an impossibility. Instead the debate is over whether Marriage should be extended to beyond religious practises.

Not accepting Jesus is soul-destroying. Would you ban other religions?

Laws are not there to 'encourage good, moral behaviour'.[yes they are, or should, and up to now, were designed to]

See my red comments above.

Sorry I don't think you understand what natural law is. Sodomy is against natural law yet people still choose that. Try this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

The Smurf

The Smurf wrote: »

See my red comments above.

Sorry I don't think you understand what natural law is. Sodomy is against natural law yet people still choose that. Try this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

From the first line of your link...

In English this term is frequently employed as equivalent to the laws of nature

The article states natural law used in an ethical sense is different for the purposes of the article...

Morbert

The Smurf wrote: »

like a law banning abortion???

Abortion is banned because human rights are granted at conception, making abortion equivalent to murder. If the only argument against abortion was that it is against God's will, then that would indeed be insufficient reason to enshrine it in law.

As an aside, I have Christian friends who are pro-choice, and atheist friends who are pro-life.

wrong - God desires that we order society according to His will as best we can

Well the EAI might disagree with you on that one.

http://www.evangelical.ie/docs/Civil%20Partnership%20response.pdf
"There are a number of important Biblical and practical principles that have led us to this conclusion [Support of civil unions]. As evangelical Christians our response to any situation should be shaped firstly by our understanding of who God is and how he acts in the world. The Scriptures are our foundation for this understanding. Jesus has come to the world, has died for love of all people in the world, has risen and will return to judge and rule the world. These realities must shape all we think and say and do.

The Christian Scriptures make it clear that God‘s purpose for his gift of sex is that it would be the ultimate physical expression of love between a man and a woman in the context of the covenant of marriage. However, the Gospel requires of us that we show grace to those who fundamentally disagree with our convictions and who do not shape their lives according to what we believe is good for them. Jesus requires of his followers that they love and do good to those who oppose them or who hold to different ethical standards than they do." ---EAI

yes they are, or should, and up to now, were designed to

You opinion of what laws are seems to be at odds with both Christians and Atheists.

Sorry I don't think you understand what natural law is.

I study natural laws for a living. So the most I will grant you is I don't understand the very specific, Catholic definition that you are referring to.

Sodomy is against natural law yet people still choose that. Try this: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm

"In its strictly ethical application—the sense in which this article treats it—the 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."

So what is is the difference between natural law and "the Law of God" you referenced in your earlier post.

PDN

Posting from an airport lounge, so if I'm cut off mid-sentence it's because my flight is boarding.

I support the right of same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, but have real problems with calling them 'marriages'. My reason is that the word 'marriage' has come to have a particular meaning and, from that meaning, has a certain measure of credibility. I find it disturbing when a lobby group want the credibility that comes from the word 'marriage' - but want to redefine the word in a totally different way from how it has been understood for centuries.

In Western society, for many generations, a marriage was characterised by several traits:
1. It was a covenant made in the sight of God.
2. It was a life-long commitment.
3. It was made between one man and one woman.
Therefore, until comparatively recently, society's view of marriage pretty well coincided with the biblical view of marriage.

Then number 1 was removed - allowing marriages to be conducted in a civil ceremony with no reference to God. Nevertheless, because numbers 2 and 3 were still in place, Church and State continued to see marriage in similar, if not identical terms. The State recognised marriages conducted by the Church, and most churches recognised marriages conducted by the State.

Then number 2 was removed - not just the provision for divorce in exceptional circumstances, but people entering into marriage with the idea that they can always get divorced if it doesn't live up to their expectations. To be honest, at this point the alliance between Church and State concerning marriage is only hanging on by its fingernails. No politician or church leader wants to rock the status quo too much, so we pretend that a temporary civil contract equates to a permanent spiritual covenant.

Once number 3 is removed, either by legally permitting polygamous or same-sex marriage, then we will be better off stopping the pretence altogether. If the State, and society in general, wants to use 'marriage' to refer to a temporary secular contract that may or may not be between one man or one woman - then I'm happy for the Church to relinquish the word altogether.

At that point it would be better for the Churches to realise that 'marriage' (as the word will have totally changed its meaning) has nothing to do with what we traditionally used to call 'marriage'. I would be happier for churches to find a new term (something like "Covenant Partnership") and to amend our translations of the Bible accordingly to reflect the way language has changed. Time will tell if the word retains its credibility, or merely becomes a euphemism for civil union.

The Smurf

The Catholic Church issued a document on this very issue. Here is the conclusion:

CONCLUSION

11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons

This is the position of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, so it binding on all Catholics, including politicians...

You can read the whole document and sign a petition against this thing in Ireland here: http://www.catholicvoice.ie/

Graces7

The Smurf wrote: »

The Catholic Church issued a document on this very issue. Here is the conclusion:



This is the position of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, so it binding on all Catholics, including politicians...

You can read the whole document and sign a petition against this thing in Ireland here: http://www.catholicvoice.ie/

It is binding not only on Catholics, but in any and all true believers in Jesus Christ. Period.

Graces7

PDN wrote: »

Posting from an airport lounge, so if I'm cut off mid-sentence it's because my flight is boarding.

I support the right of same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, but have real problems with calling them 'marriages'. My reason is that the word 'marriage' has come to have a particular meaning and, from that meaning, has a certain measure of credibility. I find it disturbing when a lobby group want the credibility that comes from the word 'marriage' - but want to redefine the word in a totally different way from how it has been understood for centuries.

In Western society, for many generations, a marriage was characterised by several traits:
1. It was a covenant made in the sight of God.
2. It was a life-long commitment.
3. It was made between one man and one woman.
Therefore, until comparatively recently, society's view of marriage pretty well coincided with the biblical view of marriage.

Then number 1 was removed - allowing marriages to be conducted in a civil ceremony with no reference to God. Nevertheless, because numbers 2 and 3 were still in place, Church and State continued to see marriage in similar, if not identical terms. The State recognised marriages conducted by the Church, and most churches recognised marriages conducted by the State.

Then number 2 was removed - not just the provision for divorce in exceptional circumstances, but people entering into marriage with the idea that they can always get divorced if it doesn't live up to their expectations. To be honest, at this point the alliance between Church and State concerning marriage is only hanging on by its fingernails. No politician or church leader wants to rock the status quo too much, so we pretend that a temporary civil contract equates to a permanent spiritual covenant.

Once number 3 is removed, either by legally permitting polygamous or same-sex marriage, then we will be better off stopping the pretence altogether. If the State, and society in general, wants to use 'marriage' to refer to a temporary secular contract that may or may not be between one man or one woman - then I'm happy for the Church to relinquish the word altogether.

At that point it would be better for the Churches to realise that 'marriage' (as the word will have totally changed its meaning) has nothing to do with what we traditionally used to call 'marriage'. I would be happier for churches to find a new term (something like "Covenant Partnership") and to amend our translations of the Bible accordingly to reflect the way language has changed. Time will tell if the word retains its credibility, or merely becomes a euphemism for civil union.

This is against all Christian and Godly awareness and tradition. Heaven defend us from this kind of "reasoned" and human cerebral thinking.

Jesus; defend us!

PDN

Graces7 wrote: »

It is binding not only on Catholics, but in any and all true believers in Jesus Christ. Period.

No it isn't. The guys in Rome have the right to issue guidelines for those who choose to belong to their denomination. Their opinions are not binding on the hundreds of millions of Christians who do not choose to belong to their organisation.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Posting from an airport lounge, so if I'm cut off mid-sentence it's because my flight is boarding.

I support the right of same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, but have real problems with calling them 'marriages'. My reason is that the word 'marriage' has come to have a particular meaning and, from that meaning, has a certain measure of credibility. I find it disturbing when a lobby group want the credibility that comes from the word 'marriage' - but want to redefine the word in a totally different way from how it has been understood for centuries.

In Western society, for many generations, a marriage was characterised by several traits:
1. It was a covenant made in the sight of God.
2. It was a life-long commitment.
3. It was made between one man and one woman.
Therefore, until comparatively recently, society's view of marriage pretty well coincided with the biblical view of marriage.

Then number 1 was removed - allowing marriages to be conducted in a civil ceremony with no reference to God. Nevertheless, because numbers 2 and 3 were still in place, Church and State continued to see marriage in similar, if not identical terms. The State recognised marriages conducted by the Church, and most churches recognised marriages conducted by the State.

Then number 2 was removed - not just the provision for divorce in exceptional circumstances, but people entering into marriage with the idea that they can always get divorced if it doesn't live up to their expectations. To be honest, at this point the alliance between Church and State concerning marriage is only hanging on by its fingernails. No politician or church leader wants to rock the status quo too much, so we pretend that a temporary civil contract equates to a permanent spiritual covenant.

Once number 3 is removed, either by legally permitting polygamous or same-sex marriage, then we will be better off stopping the pretence altogether. If the State, and society in general, wants to use 'marriage' to refer to a temporary secular contract that may or may not be between one man or one woman - then I'm happy for the Church to relinquish the word altogether.

At that point it would be better for the Churches to realise that 'marriage' (as the word will have totally changed its meaning) has nothing to do with what we traditionally used to call 'marriage'. I would be happier for churches to find a new term (something like "Covenant Partnership") and to amend our translations of the Bible accordingly to reflect the way language has changed. Time will tell if the word retains its credibility, or merely becomes a euphemism for civil union.

Good post

I personally think the State should not recognize "marriages" since, as you point out, the word has different meaning in different context and different religions and different time periods.

This would allow different groups to keep what ever meaning they hold to the term "marriage", without the State basically telling them they are wrong and forcing a definition upon them.

Not a Christian though, I just wanted to thank PDN's post, so if anyone disagrees with me and wants to debate it go to Humanities or A&A

antiskeptic

Graces7 wrote: »

It is binding not only on Catholics, but in any and all true believers in Jesus Christ. Period.

Does Rome agree with you on this?

Fanny Cradock

I'm largely in agreement with PDN. I don't object to civil partnerships between opposite or same sex couples. However, I would like to hold onto the traditional association that marriage has in this country with the Christian based union of man and woman.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

Posting from an airport lounge, so if I'm cut off mid-sentence it's because my flight is boarding.

I support the right of same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, but have real problems with calling them 'marriages'. My reason is that the word 'marriage' has come to have a particular meaning and, from that meaning, has a certain measure of credibility. I find it disturbing when a lobby group want the credibility that comes from the word 'marriage' - but want to redefine the word in a totally different way from how it has been understood for centuries.

In Western society, for many generations, a marriage was characterised by several traits:
1. It was a covenant made in the sight of God.
2. It was a life-long commitment.
3. It was made between one man and one woman.
Therefore, until comparatively recently, society's view of marriage pretty well coincided with the biblical view of marriage.

Then number 1 was removed - allowing marriages to be conducted in a civil ceremony with no reference to God. Nevertheless, because numbers 2 and 3 were still in place, Church and State continued to see marriage in similar, if not identical terms. The State recognised marriages conducted by the Church, and most churches recognised marriages conducted by the State.

Then number 2 was removed - not just the provision for divorce in exceptional circumstances, but people entering into marriage with the idea that they can always get divorced if it doesn't live up to their expectations. To be honest, at this point the alliance between Church and State concerning marriage is only hanging on by its fingernails. No politician or church leader wants to rock the status quo too much, so we pretend that a temporary civil contract equates to a permanent spiritual covenant.

Once number 3 is removed, either by legally permitting polygamous or same-sex marriage, then we will be better off stopping the pretence altogether. If the State, and society in general, wants to use 'marriage' to refer to a temporary secular contract that may or may not be between one man or one woman - then I'm happy for the Church to relinquish the word altogether.

At that point it would be better for the Churches to realise that 'marriage' (as the word will have totally changed its meaning) has nothing to do with what we traditionally used to call 'marriage'. I would be happier for churches to find a new term (something like "Covenant Partnership") and to amend our translations of the Bible accordingly to reflect the way language has changed. Time will tell if the word retains its credibility, or merely becomes a euphemism for civil union.

Spot on PDN. That takes care of things from a Chrisian perspective. But what are your view on things from a social-change perspective: assuming that gay marriage represents a thicker section of the wedge than previously. You may have a view on the rights of children to be brought up by their biological parents being structurally dissolved. Or polygamous marriages having a detrimental effect on society. Would you see it as your place to defend societies structures in a way you consider healthy - or is it a case of simply letting the World have at it?

Fanny Cradock

antiskeptic wrote: »

Spot on PDN. That takes care of things from a Chrisian perspective. But what are your view on things from a social-change perspective: assuming that gay marriage represents a thicker section of the wedge than previously. You may have a view on the rights of children to be brought up by their biological parents being structurally dissolved. Or polygamous marriages having a detrimental effect on society. Would you see it as your place to defend societies structures in a way you consider healthy - or is it a case of simply letting the World have at it?

Good questions

The Smurf

PDN wrote: »

No it isn't. The guys in Rome have the right to issue guidelines for those who choose to belong to their denomination. Their opinions are not binding on the hundreds of millions of Christians who do not choose to belong to their organisation.

Good point Graces7, and well spotted. It is indeed binding on all Christians without exception and this is the Church teaching. The Holy Mother Church has the absolute authority to teach all Christians with Christ's authority (cf. Mt. 16:18, Mt. 28:19). The fact that some of her disobedient and separated children don't listen to their Mother is a sad result of human sin, pride, and rebellion (Lk. 10:16). The Holy Catholic Church is NOT a denomination.

The Smurf

PDN wrote: »

No it isn't. The guys in Rome have the right to issue guidelines for those who choose to belong to their denomination. Their opinions are not binding on the hundreds of millions of Christians who do not choose to belong to their organisation.

Just because you disobey your Mother doesn't mean she isn't still your Mother. You can shout and scream and protest, but She is still your Mother, even if you say horrible things about her and storm off to your room. Even Luther knew that.

Morbert

My religion teacher had a saying: "Ireland today is a lot less Catholic and a lot more Christian." I think the civil union bill is a testament to that.

The Smurf

Morbert wrote: »

My religion teacher had a saying: "Ireland today is a lot less Catholic and a lot more Christian." I think the civil union bill is a testament to that.

I don't think Ireland is more Christian today. Far from it. We are hurtling back towards our pagan routes, with same-sex unions now accepted, widespread sexual immorality, thieving and violence. Once we bring in the surgical child sacrifice, we can pat ourselves on the back as we confirm that 'Catholic Ireland' is dead. I don't have a lot of faith in Irish religion teachers and their witty sayings.

crosstrainer1

The Smurf wrote: »

I am against giving homosexual 'unions' any special status.

The civil law should support the Law of God. But since we want to deny God from our society, then we could perhaps say that the civil law should support the natural law. But then we have people who deny any sort of natural law. You could say then I suppose that the civil law should protect the common good. But then we have the 'common good' redefined according to modern preferences, political lobbying and diversity.

Blah whatever. We are obviously not interested in God in this country any more. At least the government isn't. That is why they have rushed and bullied through this legislation.

As regards 'gay marriage' that is an impossibility. Marriage is between one woman and one man.

It does nobody any favours to encourage them to engage in soul-destroying behaviours. Whether we like it or not, the law does encourage or discourage behaviours. One might think of murder. It is against the law. Might we expect an increase in murders if in the morning it was no longer considered a crime by the state?

Laws should encourage good, moral behaviour. Recognition of 'gay union' of any kind only serves to create the illusion that this is something that is acceptable and good, and thus we can expect a greater acceptance of such things in society.

I should say that I am also against the idea of co-habiting heterosexual couples getting any special recognition in law either. Of course the issue becomes more complicated once children appear on the scene, as they have their own rights which must be protected.

The interesting little sting in the new legislation is that heterosexual couples will indeed be affected - by living together for a set period, they too will have rights. So perhaps folks might consider this before 'shacking up'? Maybe do something else - LIKE GET MARRIED! And not on a whim either.

i have lot of friends who are gay but dont know why they where born this way and i have gay friends who where abused in their younger life by people who where eatting the altar rails.These people pay their taxes and try to get on with their lives without annoying anyone else. marriage was not invented by god because adam and eve wernt married he who is without sinn i say no more

The Smurf

crosstrainer1 wrote: »

i have lot of friends who are gay but dont know why they where born this way and i have gay friends who where abused in their younger life by people who where eatting the altar rails.These people pay their taxes and try to get on with their lives without annoying anyone else. marriage was not invented by god because adam and eve wernt married he who is without sinn i say no more

Nobody is 'born gay'. There is no evidence that anyone is 'born gay'. Sexual abuse can cause problems of this nature.

Although the inclination itself is not chosen per se, the choice to engage in these acts is a choice.

The introduction of civil unions will affect married couples - they must take a financial hit in their own tax credits in order to fund this.

God did institute marriage. He intended the sexual faculty for procreation and union of spouses. It is not 'judgemental' to point this out.

Morbert

The Smurf wrote: »

I don't think Ireland is more Christian today. Far from it. We are hurtling back towards our pagan routes, with same-sex unions now accepted, widespread sexual immorality, thieving and violence. Once we bring in the surgical child sacrifice, we can pat ourselves on the back as we confirm that 'Catholic Ireland' is dead. I don't have a lot of faith in Irish religion teachers and their witty sayings.

While I am not a Christian, I have gathered that being a Christian is about spreading a message, and living by that message. It is not about subverting secular law in order to forcefully unite all people in a mandatory Jesus-Camp society. Jesus said the message would bring divisions. He also said God would sort out those divisions. It seems that the Catholic church is a denomination that has not learned that yet, as it is a denomination more concerned with establishing itself as an authority than with spreading the message of Christianity.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

While I am not a Christian, I have gathered that being a Christian is about spreading a message, and living by that message. It is not about subverting secular law in order to forcefully unite all people in a mandatory Jesus-Camp society.

Good point. I get really concerned when I hear Christians, like the Taliban, wanting to enforce their views and morals upon a secular society. Righteousness, according to the New Testament, involves living differently from the surrounding culture - not trying to force the surrounding culture to live like us.

Fanny Cradock

Where does one draw the line between going out into the world to tell the good news and trying to force people to change?

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Where does one draw the line between going out into the world to tell the good news and trying to force people to change?

I wouldn't say the two are on the same spectrum. No matter how enthusiastically you spread the message of Christianity, it would never amount to forcing people to change. Similarly, you could enshrine all of Christianity in law, but that would not be spreading the message at all.

CAZ85

bluewolf wrote: »

You forgot the christians out there who aren't against it

HERE HERE!!!:) there is NOTHING wrong it t

Baggio1

there is EVERYTHING wrong with it

against natural law
against God's law
a perverse arrangement which demands to be "seen" as same as normal marriage ..in other words a sham and rebellion against Gods law

the whole idea is vile and against all that marriage SHOULD be...

nothing wrong with it??? talk about dillusional remarks!

those "christians" out there who arn't against it really ought to research their own faith and stop fooling themselves,,,Soddom and Gomaragh were both destroyed because of sodomy......personnly i can see a similar punishment coming to the world again because of the way societies overall continue to slide into a complete moral sess pit

and i aint no saint far from it...just hate all the foney false thinking and complete rejection of Gods law all around us....ughh it has to stop sometime surely.///

CAZ85

Talk about narrow minded.....

The Smurf

Morbert wrote: »

While I am not a Christian, I have gathered that being a Christian is about spreading a message, and living by that message. It is not about subverting secular law in order to forcefully unite all people in a mandatory Jesus-Camp society. Jesus said the message would bring divisions. He also said God would sort out those divisions. It seems that the Catholic church is a denomination that has not learned that yet, as it is a denomination more concerned with establishing itself as an authority than with spreading the message of Christianity.

You are wrong. Yes, Christianity is meant to be lived from the heart. People will look at you, see your joy, and in turn you will look at others and see their pain and hurt. You will mourn for their sins and yours. You will pray and hope that God's Grace touches and melts their hearts. None of this means, however that Christians should absent themselves from the public square. It is a false idea - separation of Church and State - which has come about which demands that religion be a private matter for the home and that Christians should keep their nose out of the law and good ordering of society.

PDN wrote: »

Good point. I get really concerned when I hear Christians, like the Taliban, wanting to enforce their views and morals upon a secular society. Righteousness, according to the New Testament, involves living differently from the surrounding culture - not trying to force the surrounding culture to live like us.

No, it's not about the Taliban or anything like that. What this is about, is Christians, especially Catholics, with the rich social teaching and strong leadership of the Pope and Bishops (ok, so the Bishops haven't been so good lately, but things will improve, I promise. One only has to look to the USA to see good Bishops, e.g. Archbishop Chaput of Denver), involving themselves in society, and ensuring that their voice is heard in the public square so they can have a healing influence on others and work towards a better society where the human dignity of persons is protected and promoted.

It is the pathetic attitude of some so-called Christians who are the reason why abortion, for example, is knocking on Ireland's door. Imagine a vibrant Ireland filled with devout Catholics who love God and want to make a difference in the world. Do you think abortion would have a mission trying to get in? Instead we have the lukewarm saying ''Oh well, abortion is wrong, but I can't be forcing my morality down other people's throats.'' This private morality notion is completely erroneous. We have a duty and obligation to involve ourselves, as best we can, to working towards a society that reflects the Gospel and upholds and protects the dignity of each human person.

Christians are supposed to be a leaven in society, so that they cause the whole loaf to rise in Christ. We are not meant to keep the light to ourselves in our own private home of church hall, but to share it with all and exert a healing influence on the world. There is no true separation between church and state. The very idea is an invention.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Where does one draw the line between going out into the world to tell the good news and trying to force people to change?

You can't really force anyone to do anything. You can try but it is ultimately fruitless. What you can do though is to work, as a citizen, towards laws which protect the common good, and that is in everyone's best interest.

There will, as usual, be strong differences of opinion here. The Catholic Church has a rich tradition of social teaching. The Protestant, on the other hand, has the attitude of the Enlightenment (indeed the Enlightenment is the fruit of the Protestant revolt) and so will not share in this rich tradition, clinging instead to the mistaken notion of 'separation of church and state'.

There is a good summary here: http://www.osjspm.org/catholic_social_teaching.aspx

Some key excerpts:

It is imperative that no one ... would indulge in a merely individualistic morality. The best way to fulfill one's obligations of justice and love is to contribute to the common good according to one's means and the needs of others, and also to promote and help public and private organizations devoted to bettering the conditions of life. The Church and the Modern World, #30

and:

1. Dignity of the Human Person

Belief in the inherent dignity of the human person is the foundation of all Catholic social teaching. Human life is sacred, and the dignity of the human person is the starting point for a moral vision for society. This principle is grounded in the idea that the person is made in the image of God. The person is the clearest reflection of God among us.

2. Common Good and Community

The human person is both sacred and social. We realize our dignity and rights in relationship with others, in community. Human beings grow and achieve fulfillment in community. Human dignity can only be realized and protected in the context of relationships with the wider society.

How we organize our society -- in economics and politics, in law and policy -- directly affects human dignity and the capacity of individuals to grow in community. The obligation to "love our neighbor" has an individual dimension, but it also requires a broader social commitment. Everyone has a responsibility to contribute to the good of the whole society, to the common good.

neuro-praxis

PDN wrote: »

Good point. I get really concerned when I hear Christians, like the Taliban, wanting to enforce their views and morals upon a secular society. Righteousness, according to the New Testament, involves living differently from the surrounding culture - not trying to force the surrounding culture to live like us.

PDN, this is BANG ON.

Let's concern ourselves as Christians with living revolutionary lives that transform the communities in which we live, that provide for the needy and demonstrate in word and deed to those around us that our creator God is good and desires relationship with each of us.

Why are Christians so f**king hung up on the sin of everyone else, when the Irish church is teeming with it?!

*bangs head against brick wall*

The Smurf

neuro-praxis wrote: »

PDN, this is BANG ON.

Let's concern ourselves as Christians with living revolutionary lives that transform the communities in which we live, that provide for the needy and demonstrate in word and deed to those around us that our creator God is good and desires relationship with each of us.

That's grand, and I agree with it. If you read my post, just above, you'll see that I began to propose concrete ways of setting out to achieve this.

Part of the Church's work is calling out sin and speaking out for what is good and true, we can't forget that. Hence the Church's opposition to this civil partnership bill.

This is good background reading: http://chastitysf.com/q_love.htm along with this, on the dangers of too much social activism and not enough prayer: http://www.chastitysf.com/q_social.htm

neuro-praxis

I assure you, The Smurf, that the church in Ireland is not in danger of doing too much social activism.

The Smurf

neuro-praxis wrote: »

I assure you, The Smurf, that the church in Ireland is not in danger of doing too much social activism.

I'm thinking more of the American scene. There has to be a Godly, healthy balance, the Martha and the Mary, if you like.

The Church hierarchy should be at the absolute forefront of the fight against abortion in Ireland, but alas, it falls to a relatively small number of mostly lay Catholics who are fighting against abortion in Ireland to fight the fight, without the active and vibrant support of their bishops and priests, by and large*. This is a disgrace, though there are signs of change in a positive direction.



* There are of course some exceptions among bishops and priests. For example, I recall at least 3 bishops in NI promoted the recent Rally for Life in Belfast. It would be nice next year to have one attend.

mehfesto

Baggio1 wrote: »

there is EVERYTHING wrong with it

......personnly i can see a similar punishment coming to the world again because of the way societies overall continue to slide into a complete moral sess pit

If you believe a punishment is coming to these people, why bother with them? And not just let them be?
Spouting that they are 'sinful' and against gods law, etc will hardly convert them over. Uness you are actively going to try and make a sensible case which appeals to them, you may as well be talking to the wall.

You catch more bees with sugar, etc etc. And I justdont understand why as a Christian you would call people evil, but not *actually* try and save them from hell.

Baggio1

mehfesto,

sorry dude i didnt call anybody evil..just the general homosexual activity,,and theres nothing wrong with that,,hey i aint any saint!,,but i dont try to force society to accept that any wrong doing i done/do is ok and they should just accept it, save people??..am just one person i pray for everyone to be saved,,,its all i can do.

punishment etc?..well there ARE legit visonaries around the world...ok we know there are loopers and charlotans too!,,,,but its interesting that the key ones all say the same,,,that because of the moral sesspit the world is turning into, God is going to send huge punishments to the world,,but not before a great worldwide warning,,,,if the people of the world dont correct their behaviour - then the chastisemants will begin

when will this be?..hey i dont know but by what these seer's have said its not far away at all...so there you go...no one HAS to believe these things...but i do...simple as that

philologos

JimiTime wrote: »

Now, I'm wondering. Why is it, that you would support civil union, but not marriage? Is it just because you hold marriage as a sacread thing, or is there a practical reason you would be against gay marriage?

I'm in camp number 2. Precisely because I believe that LGBT people are going to form relationships any way whether or not Christians approve. I am opposed to same-sex marriage pretty much due to the prospect of children and family. I believe that marriage is the foundation of the family, and that it deserves to be protected. I would also prefer if as many children as possible could be raised in households with a mother and a father in a stable marriage.

As for what implications my disagreement with same-sex marriage has. It merely means that I will support the traditional family according to my conscience. If in any case whereby there is a referendum to legalise same-sex marriage and this comes out in a yes vote, I will understand that society has made their decision, and I will personally accept that that decision has been made even if I disagree.

Morbert

The Smurf wrote: »

You are wrong. Yes, Christianity is meant to be lived from the heart. People will look at you, see your joy, and in turn you will look at others and see their pain and hurt. You will mourn for their sins and yours. You will pray and hope that God's Grace touches and melts their hearts. None of this means, however that Christians should absent themselves from the public square. It is a false idea - separation of Church and State - which has come about which demands that religion be a private matter for the home and that Christians should keep their nose out of the law and good ordering of society.

Strange, you start your paragraph with "You are wrong." but then talk about things I never said. I have never claimed Christians should absent themselves from the public square. I have never claimed Christianity should be a private affair. By all means, publically preach Christianity. Let it permeate society.

What I said was that secular law should not be used to 'encourage' people to adhere to Christian practises. That is a theocracy, and it would serve no common good.

AudreyHepburn

Baggio1 wrote: »

there is EVERYTHING wrong with it

against natural law
against God's law
a perverse arrangement which demands to be "seen" as same as normal marriage ..in other words a sham and rebellion against Gods law

the whole idea is vile and against all that marriage SHOULD be...

nothing wrong with it??? talk about dillusional remarks!

those "christians" out there who arn't against it really ought to research their own faith and stop fooling themselves,,,Soddom and Gomaragh were both destroyed because of sodomy......personnly i can see a similar punishment coming to the world again because of the way societies overall continue to slide into a complete moral sess pit

and i aint no saint far from it...just hate all the foney false thinking and complete rejection of Gods law all around us....ughh it has to stop sometime surely.///

You see opinions like this are the reason we as Christians are laughed at and looked down on.

If anyone needs to have a good look at themselves and their faith, it's those who think like this, those with narrow, closed minds.

There is nothing at all wrong with same-sex marriages and relationships. You cannot help who you are attracted to or love and no-one should be made feel abnormal for being with the one you love.

Plus there is no evidence at all to suggest children of gay/leisbian couples are any less well adjusted then those of heterosexual couples.

The Smurf

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You see opinions like this are the reason we as Christians are laughed at and looked down on.

If anyone needs to have a good look at themselves and their faith, it's those who think like this, those with narrow, closed minds.

There is nothing at all wrong with same-sex marriages and relationships. You cannot help who you are attracted to or love and no-one should be made feel abnormal for being with the one you love.

Plus there is no evidence at all to suggest children of gay/leisbian couples are any less well adjusted then those of heterosexual couples.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the constant teaching of the Magisterium of the Church teach the immoral nature of these actions.

You can choose whether or not to act on any attraction or desire you may feel. We all have a choice how we live our lives, despite our attractions.

There is evidence that kids do better with a stable father and mother. [E.g http://www.narth.com/docs/needboth.html ]

According to Dr. Byrd, research study after research study has shown that "Children navigate the developmental stages more easily, are more solid in their gender identity, perform better in academic tasks at school, have fewer emotional disorders and become better functioning adults when they are reared by dual-gender parents."

On the contrary, however, studies of children reared in lesbian homes indicate that girls become more masculinized and boys become more feminized in their behaviors. (Stacy and Biblarz, 2001) Both boys and girls in homosexual households were more likely to experiment with homosexuality than those reared in heterosexual homes.

I suggest you read this: http://www.chastitysf.com/compassion.htm

It is about true compassion and what it means.

-

JimiTime

antiskeptic wrote: »

My own view on this seems to be settling in the following way

1) 'The World' is God-hating and isn't subject to the Law of God (in the sense of subjecting itself to the Law of God. Therefore it is unreasonable to expect The World to conform to God's will in this or any other issue. It is also unreasonable to try to impose God's Law on the world.

It is to be expected that the World will formulate its law contrary to the Law of God in many ways and this, the tending towards homosexual marriage (a California court just pronounced for gay marriage) is par for the course. It has done so previously and will do so again.

2) Christianity isn't Christendom. It is not appropriate that Christians bunch together to form political unions on a par with say the gay and lesbian lobby groups so as to better impose their view on society. By all means express a view. By all means vote according to conscience. By all means opt not to marry gays in your church. But leave the politicising of Christianity alone

You understand, that letting it be, is different to 'supporting' it though? Also, with regards to 'politicising' Christianity. When you say, 'form political unions', is that like getting entwined with a political party, or are you talking about uniting to oppose the introduction of abortion etc?

prinz wrote: »

I would support some sort of civil union with accompanying rights in the line of next of kin, inheritance, tax credits etc.

However I would always support the State recognising heterosexual marriage as the preferred option with better benefits, when it comes to kids, adoption, more tax breaks etc.

So you stop short of allowing homosexual marriage due to you the children question? Is that the only reason? If they allowed homosexual marriage, but not homosexual adoption, you'd be ok with that?

Or is the civil union you support, merely a next of kin contract, that could be used by two platonic friends?

PDN wrote: »

I support the right of same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, but have real problems with calling them 'marriages'. My reason is that the word 'marriage' has come to have a particular meaning and, from that meaning, has a certain measure of credibility. I find it disturbing when a lobby group want the credibility that comes from the word 'marriage' - but want to redefine the word in a totally different way from how it has been understood for centuries.

In Western society, for many generations, a marriage was characterised by several traits:
1. It was a covenant made in the sight of God.
2. It was a life-long commitment.
3. It was made between one man and one woman.
Therefore, until comparatively recently, society's view of marriage pretty well coincided with the biblical view of marriage.

Then number 1 was removed - allowing marriages to be conducted in a civil ceremony with no reference to God. Nevertheless, because numbers 2 and 3 were still in place, Church and State continued to see marriage in similar, if not identical terms. The State recognised marriages conducted by the Church, and most churches recognised marriages conducted by the State.

Then number 2 was removed - not just the provision for divorce in exceptional circumstances, but people entering into marriage with the idea that they can always get divorced if it doesn't live up to their expectations. To be honest, at this point the alliance between Church and State concerning marriage is only hanging on by its fingernails. No politician or church leader wants to rock the status quo too much, so we pretend that a temporary civil contract equates to a permanent spiritual covenant.

Once number 3 is removed, either by legally permitting polygamous or same-sex marriage, then we will be better off stopping the pretence altogether. If the State, and society in general, wants to use 'marriage' to refer to a temporary secular contract that may or may not be between one man or one woman - then I'm happy for the Church to relinquish the word altogether.

At that point it would be better for the Churches to realise that 'marriage' (as the word will have totally changed its meaning) has nothing to do with what we traditionally used to call 'marriage'. I would be happier for churches to find a new term (something like "Covenant Partnership") and to amend our translations of the Bible accordingly to reflect the way language has changed. Time will tell if the word retains its credibility, or merely becomes a euphemism for civil union.

As you have alluded to, what the world deams as 'marriage' is quite removed from our Christian meaning now anyway. What you seem to be saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that allowing homosexual union be called 'marriage', would be the straw that breaks the camels back?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm largely in agreement with PDN. I don't object to civil partnerships between opposite or same sex couples. However, I would like to hold onto the traditional association that marriage has in this country with the Christian based union of man and woman.

Why?

neuro-praxis wrote: »

PDN, this is BANG ON.

Let's concern ourselves as Christians with living revolutionary lives that transform the communities in which we live, that provide for the needy and demonstrate in word and deed to those around us that our creator God is good and desires relationship with each of us.

Why are Christians so f**king hung up on the sin of everyone else, when the Irish church is teeming with it?!

*bangs head against brick wall*

This is a forum to discuss a range of topics. Just because one is engaging in such discussion etc does not mean they are not engaged in the activities you mentioned. Lets assume people here are Christians in deed, and just discuss the OP.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm in camp number 2. Precisely because I believe that LGBT people are going to form relationships any way whether or not Christians approve.

Would you also let your child get p!ssed, have sex, smoke weed etc under your roof? There are many who say 'sure teenagers will do it anyway, so...' Be you right or wrong, I'm not sure if the above would be wise reasoning. You know what I mean? (Again, tone is hard to show in writing, so I'm not saying you are unwise, but rather, I see a fundamental flaw in your reasoning here) Nicest, noncondescending tone possible:)

I am opposed to same-sex marriage pretty much due to the prospect of children and family. I believe that marriage is the foundation of the family, and that it deserves to be protected. I would also prefer if as many children as possible could be raised in households with a mother and a father in a stable marriage.

So the word means little? If they put in a cavaet that there would be no homosexual adoption, you would support it?

As for what implications my disagreement with same-sex marriage has. It merely means that I will support the traditional family according to my conscience. If in any case whereby there is a referendum to legalise same-sex marriage and this comes out in a yes vote, I will understand that society has made their decision, and I will personally accept that that decision has been made even if I disagree.

What else could you do really?

Fanny Cradock

Why keep the name or why support civil unions?

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why keep the name or why support civil unions?

Why want to keep 'marriage' as exclusive to heterosexual relationships while at the same time 'suporting' (This being an action word) civil union? Or is the civil union you refer to, the idea that anyone, platonic or otherwise can enter into a kind of next of kin agreement?