God and Gay Marriage

Quote: FrGamble

Didn't know about the "enbrotherment", maybe that could be the term used for the civil unions of two men? I still don't know why we can't ensure the rights of homosexuals who desire to enter into a committed and loving relationship without calling it something it is not. The word marriage, outside of some obscure "wedding" Mosca found, has always meant the union of opposite genders. It's not that marriage wants to remain especially special it is just a fact that the union of two men or women is different than that of a man and woman. You can't deny that without denying the significance of what it means to be male or female. Shouldn't we call different things different names? This isn't complicated theology, it is just logic.

Logic. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you would like I can flood this topic with instances of Church sanctioned same sex unions throughout Western history, post-Roman empire.

The Forgotten History of Gay Marriage

And so could you, if you wanted to Google it and educate yourself. And anyhow you are quibbling over word definitions, as if those are fixed and rigid throughout history. They are not. Cultures evolve. You argue dishonestly. I can understand your position, even if I disagree with it. But your arguments are circular and based on assumptions. There is no point to it.

Christian marriages are no less special now. It isn't the institution of marriage that is special in and of itself; it is the summation of all the individual special unions that make the institution special. I'll be damned to a hell I don't believe in if I am going to be the one who exiles others to a life without love because of whom they prefer to knock nasties with. There are rights and privileges that accompany marriage that are essential to sharing that love in a meaningful way. Are you willing to stand up, look these committed men and women in the eye, and deny them those rights? If so, then I challenge you to next look in the mirror and question your God.

Quote: Evenbob

That's the point of all this. A Gay couple can
now get married but are still not on equal
ground with non Gays because most major
churches won't marry them. That's what
all of this has always been about. Gays won't
be happy until their church welcomes their
marriage with open arms. Never gonna happen
you say? 15 years ago they said yesterdays
decision would never happen. Time to change
the constitution with a new amendment about
religious freedom.

MAY have a case. If there is a case, probably very weak. Anyway, the decision has nothing to do with church and religion. It about the right to get married in the courthouse , and that marriage be legal in all 50. Really has nothing to do with religion. All the churches will move forward and conduct there business as they always have.
In reality, except for gays, has absolutely no impact on the daily lives of people.

Quote: terapined

It about the right to get married in the courthouse , and that marriage be legal in all 50. Really has nothing to do with religion.

Wow. You really need to get up to speed. There
are tons of Gays who go to church and belong
to a church. Tons of catholic Gays. And they can't
get married in their own church.

George Takai on CNN yesterday:

'I believe in religious freedom, and people who argue that are entitled to their freedom. But they do not have the freedom to impose their religious values on to others.'

In others words, the don't have the right to
refuse to marry us in their churches. Not
for much longer, anyway..

Quote: Mosca

I'll be damned to a hell I don't believe in if I am going to be the one who exiles others to a life without love because of whom they prefer to knock nasties with. There are rights and privileges that accompany marriage that are essential to sharing that love in a meaningful way. Are you willing to stand up, look these committed men and women in the eye, and deny them those rights? If so, then I challenge you to next look in the mirror and question your God.

No I am not. That is why I have no problem with the state granting these rights to all who desire to live in a loving and committed relationship, regardless of gender. It is even in the state's interests to do so, this is why the state got into the marriage business in the first place, it was good for society. If this is what you think I or the Church are doing, denying rights and exiling people to a life without love than you are sadly mistaken.

What I am saying is that the relationship between two men or women is fundamentally different than the relationship between a man and a woman and our language should reflect that. Mixing this up is what is causing all the hoopla and threats to religious freedom. Why redefine marriage and not look these committed men and women in the eye and give them those same rights in a civil legal construct called enbrothereing or ensistering or a civil union and avoid all this controversy? That I can do. Marriage is unique, friendship is unique, brotherhood or sisterhood or civil unions are unique - they should not have all the same name.

Bob the last time I checked there were good and faithful gays and lesbians in my Church who understand and accept the Church's teaching. The last time I checked they also were not forced to be Catholic.

The truth of same-sex unions in the Church

As early as St. Paul the Church had a clear notion of the sacramentality of Marriage:
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.” (Ephesians 6:25-28)

Sentance one talks about christ and the church.

Sentance two instructs men to love their wives.

Neither one, nor the rest of the paragraph, establishes marriage as a holy sacrament.

Furthermore, it does not define what a marriage is supposed to be, or who it can or can not be between.

You need to find the part of the book that says "a marriage is a holy sacrament between one man, one woman, and no other" or something like that.

Quote: FrGamble

What I am saying is that the relationship between two men or women is fundamentally different than the relationship between a man and a woman

How is it different. They have jobs, cook meals,
go to movies, watch TV on the couch. A lot of
them raise adopted kids. Where is the 'fundamental'
difference, I don't see it. In fact, I see no difference
at all.

Clearly a problem when you say the fundimental purpose of marriage is procreation, yet allowing a man and a woman who can't have children to get married.

Quote: Dalex64

Clearly a problem when you say the fundimental purpose of marriage is procreation.

The purpose of marriage is to protect
property and assets. That's why
marriages were always arranged,
and still are in parts of the world.
It was always about money.