Pope Says Gay Marriage Poses A Threat To 'Justice And Peace' In World Day Of Peace 2013 Address

[TheJPRD]

I'm not Catholic, hence I don't believe the Pope is infallible. However, I respect the opinions of the Pope, and I understand what's at the core of his thinking on this issue.

Marriage is a religious concept, and has been defined as "the union between a man and a woman" for thousands of years. When a society changes such an ancient, respected, and universally-accepted definition radically and rapidly, ALL other societal norms become targets for such sudden change in definition. The simple fact that gay/lesbian marriage can become reality, opens the door to other radical changes in moral topics such as euthanasia, adult-child sex, and the performance of life-death spectacles as conducted in the Roman Colosseum.

I've stated before that the concept of gay-lesbian unions is one which I find to be conditionally acceptable. Such a union would provide virtually all of the legal protections and responsibilities to a gay/lesbian couple as marriage provides to heterosexual couples. You'd think that when giving someone one-million dollars but calling it "broccoli", the recipient would be as equally satisfied and appreciative as if we'd called it "one-million dollars". Apparently not.

I agree wholey with Cruella's comment about the undue attention that homosexual relationships get in our schools and media. The attention is more "propaganda" than anything else, and virtually amounts to a promotion of such a lifestyle.

At what point, if any, does liberalizing our societal norms become a stupid and dangerous thing to do??????????? Are we willing to accept a liberal's definition of when that time has come??

 

[PLC1]

I'm not Catholic, hence I don't believe the Pope is infallible. However, I respect the opinions of the Pope, and I understand what's at the core of his thinking on this issue.

Marriage is a religious concept, and has been defined as "the union between a man and a woman" for thousands of years. When a society changes such an ancient, respected, and universally-accepted definition radically and rapidly, ALL other societal norms become targets for such sudden change in definition. The simple fact that gay/lesbian marriage can become reality, opens the door to other radical changes in moral topics such as euthanasia, adult-child sex, and the performance of life-death spectacles as conducted in the Roman Colosseum.

I've stated before that the concept of gay-lesbian unions is one which I find to be conditionally acceptable. Such a union would provide virtually all of the legal protections and responsibilities to a gay/lesbian couple as marriage provides to heterosexual couples. You'd think that when giving someone one-million dollars but calling it "broccoli", the recipient would be as equally satisfied and appreciative as if we'd called it "one-million dollars". Apparently not.

I agree wholey with Cruella's comment about the undue attention that homosexual relationships get in our schools and media. The attention is more "propaganda" than anything else, and virtually amounts to a promotion of such a lifestyle.

At what point, if any, does liberalizing our societal norms become a stupid and dangerous thing to do??????????? Are we willing to accept a liberal's definition of when that time has come??

I'm not sure just why homosexual marriage is "dangerous," but, if people think it is, then it seems to be it would be easy to satisfy everyone simply by calling a union between two women or two men something else, but give it the same rights and responsibilities. There are hundreds of examples of calling something by another name in order to make it acceptable.

Traditionally, marriage has been defined as a union between men and women, that is true. It is also true that it has been, and in many places continues to be, a union between one man and several women.

 

[cashmcall]

I'm not Catholic, hence I don't believe the Pope is infallible. However, I respect the opinions of the Pope, and I understand what's at the core of his thinking on this issue.

Marriage is a religious concept, and has been defined as "the union between a man and a woman" for thousands of years. When a society changes such an ancient, respected, and universally-accepted definition radically and rapidly, ALL other societal norms become targets for such sudden change in definition. The simple fact that gay/lesbian marriage can become reality, opens the door to other radical changes in moral topics such as euthanasia, adult-child sex, and the performance of life-death spectacles as conducted in the Roman Colosseum.

I've stated before that the concept of gay-lesbian unions is one which I find to be conditionally acceptable. Such a union would provide virtually all of the legal protections and responsibilities to a gay/lesbian couple as marriage provides to heterosexual couples. You'd think that when giving someone one-million dollars but calling it "broccoli", the recipient would be as equally satisfied and appreciative as if we'd called it "one-million dollars". Apparently not.

I agree wholey with Cruella's comment about the undue attention that homosexual relationships get in our schools and media. The attention is more "propaganda" than anything else, and virtually amounts to a promotion of such a lifestyle.

At what point, if any, does liberalizing our societal norms become a stupid and dangerous thing to do??????????? Are we willing to accept a liberal's definition of when that time has come?

I agree its going to far..
For the gay establishment, the death of right and wrong began when gaining civil rights ceased to be enough. As the Gay Elite found Americans willing to tolerate and even accept their divergent lifestyle and point of view, they started exploiting that compassion. Thus began the furtherance of a campaign that, although promoted in the name of tolerance, understanding, and compassion, has nothing to do with acceptance of homosexuals and everything to do with eliminating the lines of decency and morality across the board. Instead of being about tolerance and equal treatment under the law, today's gay movement, in the hands of extremists, now uses the language of rights to demand acceptance of the depraved, the damaged, and the malignantly narcissistic.

The radicals in control of the gay establishment want children in their world of moral decay, lack of self-restraint, and moral relativism.There is quite a small number of individuals constituting what I term the Gay Elite. They work to the detriment of all the decent, responsible gay women and men in this country, for whom they claim to speak.

It's time we demand that radical gays leave children alone, no matter how politically incorrect the argument becomes.

I have said this before is it just me or does it seem slightly counter-productive attempting to convince straight society that our relationships deserve to be validated and that we can create and raise functioning families while marching down Main Street America wearing ass-less chaps and a dog-collar? Nah! Probably just me.

 

[dogtowner]

I'm not sure just why homosexual marriage is "dangerous," but, if people think it is, then it seems to be it would be easy to satisfy everyone simply by calling a union between two women or two men something else, but give it the same rights and responsibilities. There are hundreds of examples of calling something by another name in order to make it acceptable.

Traditionally, marriage has been defined as a union between men and women, that is true. It is also true that it has been, and in many places continues to be, a union between one man and several women.

society chose to instill the distinctions of marriage to promote what noone argues is the best structure for maintaining a productive society.

the pope warned against no fault divorce as it would degrade the family structure and boy has it.

the track record is there in mattets such as this

if you dont value the family structure then you must be ok with the mess we have. im not.

 

[PLC1]

society chose to instill the distinctions of marriage to promote what noone argues is the best structure for maintaining a productive society.

the pope warned against no fault divorce as it would degrade the family structure and boy has it.

the track record is there in mattets such as this

if you dont value the family structure then you must be ok with the mess we have. im not.

The mess we have is exactly that, and the family unit has declined. So, would ending no fault divorce help? Would approving gay marriage make the situation worse?

or is it something deeper than that, perhaps relating to selfishness and eroding moral values?

 

[dogtowner]

The mess we have is exactly that, and the family unit has declined. So, would ending no fault divorce help? Would approving gay marriage make the situation worse?

or is it something deeper than that, perhaps relating to selfishness and eroding moral values?

no question that eroding morals is the root of the problem.

where does a solid moral base get built ? parents to children for the most part. its certainly possible for a single parent to accomolish and many do but its harder. casual sex (lets face it much divorce now is the cause of no fault divorce) is best combatted by placing consequences on divorce.

same sex marriage is less a drag than NFD but we really dont need more drag these days.

is it as bad as the pope suggests ? who knows but hes got a.pretty good track record. predicting these sorts of things. worth paying attention to as opposed to ignoring it out of hand.

 

[Cruella]

We have a "no fault" society these days. Everyone blames everyone else for their failures.

 

[PLC1]

We have a "no fault" society these days. Everyone blames everyone else for their failures.

Sounds more like the other guy's fault society.

 

[PLC1]

no question that eroding morals is the root of the problem.

where does a solid moral base get built ? parents to children for the most part. its certainly possible for a single parent to accomolish and many do but its harder. casual sex (lets face it much divorce now is the cause of no fault divorce) is best combatted by placing consequences on divorce.

same sex marriage is less a drag than NFD but we really dont need more drag these days.

is it as bad as the pope suggests ? who knows but hes got a.pretty good track record. predicting these sorts of things. worth paying attention to as opposed to ignoring it out of hand.

What we have is a feedback loop. Morals decline, which leads to more single parent (or no real parent) households, which leads to children raising themselves, which leads to more moral decline.

SSM does not lead to children, nor to moral decay.

Some people are born homosexual. Trying to be what they are not leads to more problems than simply being what god made them to be.

 

[dogtowner]

What we have is a feedback loop. Morals decline, which leads to more single parent (or no real parent) households, which leads to children raising themselves, which leads to more moral decline.

SSM does not lead to children, nor to moral decay.

Some people are born homosexual. Trying to be what they are not leads to more problems than simply being what god made them to be.

ssm proponents would argue the children.

'born that way' unprooven. nothing preventing them from being that way nor securing the property rights they seek via free legal forms (the jurisdictions will require recording fees). marriage unnecessary nor appropriate..

 

[PLC1]

ssm proponents would argue the children.

'born that way' unprooven. nothing preventing them from being that way nor securing the property rights they seek via free legal forms (the jurisdictions will require recording fees). marriage unnecessary nor appropriate..

They would be wrong about the first part, but correct about the second, at least partly.
Why not just have "civil unions" with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage? Just call it something else besides marriage. It would be so simple. Gays could have a wedding, call each other "my wife" and "my husband", they could have a "honeymoon", they could even use the term "marriage". It just wouldn't be called that officially. What is the big deal?

 

[Openmind]

They would be wrong about the first part, but correct about the second, at least partly.
Why not just have "civil unions" with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage? Just call it something else besides marriage. It would be so simple. Gays could have a wedding, call each other "my wife" and "my husband", they could have a "honeymoon", they could even use the term "marriage". It just wouldn't be called that officially. What is the big deal?

I agree with your statement. This would be fair to all. And. . .some churches do choose to perform "marriage" ceremonies for gay couples. . .even in States that do not allow Civil Unions.

I believe that a "Church marriage" should be totally separated from the legally binding "UNIONS." In fact, that is the way it happens in MOST countries (including Italy and the Vatican!). Couples must be married through a CIVIL ceremony (the only one binding in terms of legality) and THEN they can choose to have a religious wedding performed directly after the civil ceremony (but not at the same time, and not in the same physical space) or even months or years later.

In fact, my husband and I were LEGALLY married (you would call it a civil union) on a Friday, and we had religious ceremony in a Catholic church the next day. These TWO ceremonies took place in Belgium 41 years ago, but please note that the US government ONLY recognizes the CIVIL ceremony to show that my husband and I were legally married.

By the way, I disagree that "marriage" was always religious. . .in fact, one could wonder how it was considered "religious" when it preceded many of the current religions, and it involved "cultural norms" that would today be entirely rejected by most religious community (i.e., bigamy, marriage of elderly men to under-age women, the "selling" of the bride by her family, and/or the "buying of the bride" by the family of the "groom.").

Would you consider a religious ceremony conducted by an Imam as "valid wedding" in our culture? Would you consider that a Church refusing to bless the marriage of an inter racial couple only 50 or so years ago a proper "respect" of the marriage laws?

Don't you think that the "separation of Church and government" should be enough to require that, ONLY the legal side of an union. . .not the "religious ceremony" be valid to obtain the "government benefits" granted to married couples?

I believe that a TRUE separation of the "legal civil union" and of the "religious sacrament of marriage" would simplify and clarify everything. It would also serve the rules of the Constitution a lot better!

 

[PLC1]

I agree with your statement. This would be fair to all. And. . .some churches do choose to perform "marriage" ceremonies for gay couples. . .even in States that do not allow Civil Unions.

I believe that a "Church marriage" should be totally separated from the legally binding "UNIONS." In fact, that is the way it happens in MOST countries (including Italy and the Vatican!). Couples must be married through a CIVIL ceremony (the only one binding in terms of legality) and THEN they can choose to have a religious wedding performed directly after the civil ceremony (but not at the same time, and not in the same physical space) or even months or years later.

In fact, my husband and I were LEGALLY married (you would call it a civil union) on a Friday, and we had religious ceremony in a Catholic church the next day. These TWO ceremonies took place in Belgium 41 years ago, but please note that the US government ONLY recognizes the CIVIL ceremony to show that my husband and I were legally married.

By the way, I disagree that "marriage" was always religious. . .in fact, one could wonder how it was considered "religious" when it preceded many of the current religions, and it involved "cultural norms" that would today be entirely rejected by most religious community (i.e., bigamy, marriage of elderly men to under-age women, the "selling" of the bride by her family, and/or the "buying of the bride" by the family of the "groom.").

Would you consider a religious ceremony conducted by an Imam as "valid wedding" in our culture? Would you consider that a Church refusing to bless the marriage of an inter racial couple only 50 or so years ago a proper "respect" of the marriage laws?

Don't you think that the "separation of Church and government" should be enough to require that, ONLY the legal side of an union. . .not the "religious ceremony" be valid to obtain the "government benefits" granted to married couples?

I believe that a TRUE separation of the "legal civil union" and of the "religious sacrament of marriage" would simplify and clarify everything. It would also serve the rules of the Constitution a lot better!

I agree.

Marriage is a civil ceremony. The ceremony, in fact, is not really the marriage. If you should need to prove a marriage valid in court, no one is going to ask for wedding pictures, a copy of the vows, or the bouquet. They are gong to ask for the marriage certificate. Walking her down the aisle is just the fun part.

So, all that really has to be done is to add "civil union certificate" to the definition of marriage certificates, and gays can go ahead and have any wedding ceremony that they want to have, just as straights do now.

 

[Aus22]

I am not sure Openminded is are correct that legal marriage must be a civil ceremony . In Australia certain religious ministers including Imans have been given the right to conduct weddings according to Civil law.. There is mo need for a civil ceremony as the religious ceremony fulfills the legal requirements for a marriage recognize by the state. Of course the Minister must fulfill the legal requirements everyone signing the register , including the bridal couple and witness . Only one marriage can take place so this might be why the second ceremony of Openminded was not recognized in the USA. As far as I know most countries follow the Australian example. of just one ceremony.

 

[Openmind]

I am not sure Openminded is are correct that legal marriage must be a civil ceremony . In Australia certain religious ministers including Imans have been given the right to conduct weddings according to Civil law.. There is mo need for a civil ceremony as the religious ceremony fulfills the legal requirements for a marriage recognize by the state. Of course the Minister must fulfill the legal requirements everyone signing the register , including the bridal couple and witness . Only one marriage can take place so this might be why the second ceremony of Openminded was not recognized in the USA. As far as I know most countries follow the Australian example. of just one ceremony.

Yes, I am aware that Australia follows the "American" pattern of allowing religious people to perform the legality of the marriage law at the same time as the religious ceremony. My son was actually married in Australia (MacKay) to an Australian woman, almost 17 years ago, and we attended the wedding.

But most European countries do NOT recognize a religious ceremony as "legally binding," but instead require a CIVIL ceremony (usually at the local City Hall, and performed by the Mayor or one of his delegate) INSTEAD or IN ADDITION to a religious wedding taking place in order to be LEGALLY married.

In fact, the marriage certificate obtained is obtained at CITY HALL, and the religious wedding is simply hand written in one area of the marriage certificate (which is a small booklet, not unlike a passport) in which the birth of every child issued from that civil union is also recorded.

By the way. . .my name is NOT Openminded, but Openmind. I thank you for remembering this.