Gay Marriages

Not everyone approves of gay priests, and the entirety of Christianity should not be judged by the Catholic church. There are some churches around here that handle snakes and run around chanting, that doesn't mean we all do :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Katidyd
If priests can be gay, why cant marriages. Now that a gay priest is out in the open, why not marriages?

---

Okay. According to the catholic catechism being gay is not inherently wrong. However, acting on those urges by doing it is. See, having sex without the possibility of having children is, in most cases, a sin (It's been a while since i read the catechism, so don't ask me about people being too old, naturally infertile, etc etc.) Anyway! That's why Roman Catholicism proscribes birth control. Now, two men or two women getting it on, obviously there's not really a chance of a little baby being conceived. Gay catholics are, in the catechism itself, encouraged to join the brother and sisterhoods. So all that kinda boils down to why it's okay to be a gay priest but not to get married *within* the church. Just like divorcees who were once married in the church cannot be married to another within the Catholic church - because in that case the catholic church doesn't acknowledge non-annulled marriages, and for them to screw would be considered adultery.

So that's my poor take on the catholic view of it, from some research several years ago. But that's no matter - divorcees can be married civilly, so why not gay people?

And as a small aside why the hell do people latch onto the homosexuality part of passages about sin and conveniently ignore stuff like covetousness and ... oh... fornication? Bah.

Note: the above in everything is not necessarily reflective of my own personal beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sier
Well the last few posts I don't think are entirely true. Gay marriages who want to have children are missing one entirely powerful factor: A mother figure. I'm not bashing single parents or anything, but it's proven over and over that children do good with both parents around divorced or undivorced, rather than just one.

I know I'll get the posts saying "Why I was brought up by just my dad and I turned out great!" and things along those lines, but as a kid wouldn't you rather have had a mom kiss your bruises then for your dad to yell "Buck up kid! Be a man!" Women just have something men can never have, gay or not gay. The same thing goes for lesbian couples lacking a father figure. The fact is that both parents sexes influence the child to grow up to who they are, and without it it's a whole lot harder..not impossible but I doubt anyone would want to risk their kid growing up to have emotional problems.

---

See, the problem is that there are plenty of heterosexual marriages that are fucked up to the point where they are much more likely to produce emotional problems in children. And there are plenty of children raised by homosexual couples who are emotionally well-adjusted. Arguing that you think that there is something missing in a same-sex couple that is bound to cause emotional problems is just so much talking out of your ass, unless you have statistics to prove that children of homosexual parents are more likely to be screwed up.

Here's what I think should be done (not what I think will actually happen):

Take the state out of the marriage business entirely. Have legal unions, possibly with more than one tier, that give the benefits of marriage -- conjoined finances, insurance, etc. If people want to get married in a religion, that's great. But the government shouldn't be in the business of instituting a fundamentally religious concept.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jabriol
Here's what I think should be done (not what I think will actually happen):

Take the state out of the marriage business entirely. Have legal unions, possibly with more than one tier, that give the benefits of marriage -- conjoined finances, insurance, etc. If people want to get married in a religion, that's great. But the government shouldn't be in the business of instituting a fundamentally religious concept.

---

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! YES! :D

If you want a license called marriage that protects you under the law - government grants you that license.

If you want a license called marriage that protects you under the law (basic laws are granted) - and you want a priest/preacher/bishop (who knows) to bless it, then let them come up with their own doctrine to sign saying that you swear upon your God's knowledge that you are not in conflict with the doctrines of your church. Heck, why should the government take on that burden when it's not even their concern?

In my opinion, you are absolutely right!

for crying out loud, sometimes i wish i were straight so i put all this shit out of my head. this is such a tiresome topic. do you really think anybody WANTS to be left out of the loop? out of the group, out of the-- okay i couldn't find another word that appropriately rhymes.

fact of the matter is, at some point this VERY discussion that happens all over the northern hemisphere just becomes dull.

point, counterpoint, point, counterpoint, point, counterpoint.

how dare GOD in his infinite kindness, loving, caring vision who created me in his own image decide that i am somehow not worthy of the same gift that my SISTER is worthy of. what a load of crap.

you know, they're called beliefs for a reason. some people believe elvis presley works at a diner on a stretch of highway somewhere in nevada.

what i'm trying to say is, believe what you want to believe, THAT is your right. the state says so. you are free to believe what you want to believe. i'm not dissing religion, what i'm actually saying is that you do have the right to believe, and you have the right to practice your recognized religion or whatever.

what you don't have the right to do is 1) tell me what i should believe and 2) impose your beliefs and religion upon me. these are mine to decide because i am afforded the same rights as you. if you want to have a religious marriage- have a religious marriage. but don't tell me that i cannot have a secular marriage because your faith says i can't. this is WHY it is secular. that is what secular IS-

Quote:

---

www.dictionary.com
Worldly rather than spiritual.
Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
Relating to or advocating secularism.
Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.

---

understanding language and what things mean is fundamental.

anyways, as i stated this is a rather tiresome topic. and this, i believe, will be my only post on this thread.

(oh, and the whole point of not calling a gay marriage 'marriage'. is retarded. another thing we have in the english language that exists in probably every language is something that allows words to mean different things. freaky huh?)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sier
1. You never met me, you simply prejudiced me based on my beliefs.

---

Okay, I was wrong in my previous post, I will respond with another post.

This is probably the most absurd point I've read on this thread. You don't have to meet someone to make conclusions about someone. Additionally, this is a medium of text. You are not -predjudged-. You are, in fact, judged on the information and views you provide. If you don't want to be called a bigot, then show that you're not a bigot. The defense works both ways.

Although, I will concede that you raised a very good point. You cannot believe yourself to be a homophobe if you do not believe in homosexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sier

2. I've physically done nothing homophobic aside from not believing in being gay.

---

But then again, a subjective opinion.

So since I'm not gay and I hold a certain moral about it, that means I'm a homophobe? All I really did was show where it was wrong biblically, if you have a problem with that I'm not the person to be whining to and namecalling, take it up with God heh. And tell me Karahd, is there anything I've said that comes remotely close to making gay's feel bad and being homophobic in the 3 or 4 years I've been around? You'd think a homophobe wouldn't surround himself by homosexuals day in and day out.:rolleyes But..whatever, this isn't the first time someone has been *discriminated* and called names for having a religion and not ignoring it, simply because it seems nicer to other people. So call me a homophobe if you want, but prove it first.

Also, there is a difference between being prejudice (or a bigot), and having an opinion. According to your definition of bigotry, if a guy prefers dating white girls more than black girls he's a bigot. Prejudiced people will be seen holding signs against gay marriages on the road and acting actively against it. The most I've done is throw out bible passages on my belief on the matter. So if there's anyone being prejudiced against, it's me. :rolleyes

Wow, interesting thread. I'll start my small contribution by stating a few facts about myself and my position in all of this. I'm a gay christian, a member of the Metropolitan Community Church of Portland. I am also on the Council of Ministries there, and I run the church's website. MCC Portland I also have a partner, we haven't talked about marriage or anything like that yet.

Marriage in the US at least, is at heart a legal institution. The facts that have been lost in the heat generated in this topic are mostly mundane concerns of everyone.

First, a straight couple can get married, no religious institution need be involved at all. And it's still 'legal'. If you wish to be blessed by a priest, minister, rabbi, iman, or anyone else, you can, but it is still a fundamentally legal thing. You can stand before a million ministers and say 'I do', but if you don't pay that fee and get that certificate, you're not married.

Second, by getting married, you get about 1000 benefits, granted by (no not churches) the government. Rights of adoption, inheritance. Ability to visit in the hospital, to make medical decisions for a loved one, tax benefits, insurance.... the list goes on and on. So getting married, gives certain legal advantages.

Yes, gay people can simulate some of these, by going to a lawyer, paying thousands of dollars, having to worry about having the correct legal documents and so on. And still, they can be denied. Hospitals can deny the validity of these legal documents. Can you imagine the heartbreak of living with and loving someone for 40 years, then as they lay dying in a hospital, not being allowed to be with them in their last moments because, according to the hospital, you are not 'family'.

Third, I don't care if you call it marriage, union, whatever. It's fundamentally unfair to allow these benefits freely to any straight couple who wants them, but not to the rest of us. No one cares if the straight couple plans to have children. That's a straw man argument. If that were the case, no woman over 50 and no man with a vasectomy could ever marry.

Fourth, a few links. If you want to say that Leviticus says homosexuals are nasty, fine. Then obey the rest of the Levitical laws. Here's a work safe, slightly funny take on that.
And if you'd like to read some articles about other verses in the Bible, read the last three articles listed on my church's website.

Okay, that's my 2 cents on it. I'm going back to getting ready for my new life with my partner, who happens to be a lovely, loving, very christian woman. :biglove

Vertas, the slightly butch salamae :)

sier, all i'm saying is that the opinions you put forth in a forum such as this are what people base their opinions on. it's not unfair. that's how it works.