www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Gay Marriage

Dear Alice,

There is no need to thank me, though I do humbly appreciate your thank you. My original post was made to simply acknowledge what you had already so eloquently written.

I have a female childhood friend who for many years now has been engaged in a homosexual relationship. She knows where I stand and I know how she feels. We agree to disagree and "live and let live". She does not seek or wish to be "married", nor does she flaunt or display her homosexuality publicly. She understands well the burdens and hardships that accompany her decision. I do feel and pray for her and all who are in similar situations.

Homosexuality is not compatible with natural law let alone the Judeo-Christian principles our country was founded on and for so many years had formed and guided the moral code of our society. To each their own but do not expect me to condone ANY lifestyle that runs contrary to moral integrity.
Love the sinner, not the sin.

Many Blessings,
Bill

I will have to respond in depth to the very gracious, interesting, and informative posts later, but I would like to quickly say that our Republic and democracy is not about imposing the will of the majority on the entire populace, but equally if not moreso about protecting the rights and freedoms of minorities from the majority.

Would anyone liked to have put segregation up to a vote in 1954? Or slavery in 1860? Or the legalization of marijuana today? Or a host of other things?

We all know that this country and its laws are absolutely not about imposing whatever the majority thinks to be appropriate.

Alexis

Bill,

Who is saying that we should accept homosexual actions as anything other than gravely sinful, and homosexuality itself as anything other than disordered? WE. ARE. ALL. IN. AGREEMENT. I don't understand why anyone in this thread hasn't figured that out by now.

Alexis

Well said Alexis.

Then why would you and others permit or at least tolerate legislation which would appear to sanction such acts as lawful, just and proper?

One cannot separate the secular and the religious so easily, especially with respect to (and perhaps because of) the fact that marriage is an institution that exists within the order of nature and grace.

Maybe you haven't been reading the papers (or the internet) there is a growing movement to legitimize incest and beastiality. This is coming mostly from Europe.

This whole, "we/you can't legislate morality" thing is really a red herring. Because WE DO LEGISLATE MORALITY!!!

Lying to a judge is perjury and is a felony. Murder, even accidental, is a felony. Theft is a felony. Fraud is a Felony. Arson is a felony. Rape is a felony. Sexual relations with a minor are felonies. Abuse of ones children or elderly parents is a felony. Need I go on? There is quite the precedent for legislating morality in not only America but around the world.

"Accidental murder" is an oxymoron. If one looks at the relevant legislation, one finds quite a number of distinctions (varying from state to state) for different forms of wrongful death.

Fr. Serge

Alexis,

I understand we are all in agreement here. The gray area is where I perceive, maybe wrongly, some of us are willing to accept the government legislating civil unions or gay "marriage".

The ball keeps rolling along. First came what gays themselves termed "life partners". Then came civil unions and now the call to full blown "marriage". If two people of the same sex wish to be life partners that is their choice. The official legislation to acknowledge and allow homosexual civil unions and marriage is not an agenda I can agree with. My opinion only.

Bill

Because I do not think it is constitutional for every American to live by what I believe to be morally correct. It's easy to disagree here, but what if we were the minority in some radical Muslim country, but with our Constitution intact? I think you would be a lot more wary of having a "majority's morality rules" idea play out. These things set precedents for a time when we really could be in the minority, with the majority legislating their twisted moral opinions on us, like not eating pork or not speaking out against the evils of homosexuals acts.

Bill, I totally respect that. Thank you.

Alexis

Bill,

I totally respect that. Thank you.

Alexis

Alexis:

This sounds a bit like Protestant arguments against anything they cannot find in the Bible. The constitution is an outline and the many judicial attempts to expand it with interpretations not intended by the authors is part of what has caused so much of the breakdown of society we seem to be living in these days. It's the framework within which we operate and live out the whole body of law and culture we have received over the past two millenia.

That being said, I'm locking this thread. It's been all over the place. It fails to do what this forum seems to be intended to do.

1. It does not build up the Faith of its members,
2. It does not build up the understanding of the Church's position in relation to this issue--something critical to us all as Apostolic Christians, and
3. It muddies the waters for Christians since we have to keep in mind that our first loyalty is to God, rendering to Him the commitment we made in Baptism, and only second a commitment to our (Caesar) own country's current politically correct approach to this issue. It seems to me that our Baptismal call is to be radically counter-cultural in our opposition to this trend, even if it costs us in social or career or other status.

If this topic comes up again, I would ask that it be more focused and stay away from all the tangential issues that put this thing all over the place. I will lock any future treatment of this issue that proceeds as this thread has.

In Christ,

BOB