Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Defend Marriage


If you are on Facebook, I am sure that you have seen the plethora of equal signs that are popping up everywhere. Those who wish to redefine the definition of marriage are out in full force.

Honestly, those of us who support the traditional definition of marriage should not be surprised. Society has already redefined marriage years ago. It started with the Council of Lambeth in 1930 when the Anglican church approved birth control in 'limited circumstances'. Gradually, the acceptance of birth control would grow until is became perfectly acceptable for married couples to use contraceptives to space or avoid children. Slowly, marriage stopped being the building block of life.

Also, in an age where people change spouses almost as much as they change their underwear, the permanence of marriage has also diminished. Over 50% of marriages end in divorce. The most common reason? Irreconcilable differences. My spouse and I no longer have the same feelings for each other when we got married, so I can go find someone else.

Well, when I got married, I promised to stay true to my husband no matter what. I vowed this before God. What good is a vow if you don't follow through? I guess one's word doesn't have the same weight as it did before.

So, if marriage is no longer permanent or the building block of life, then it is no wonder that people want to expand the definition even further. Marriage has lost all of its meaning within the last 100 years.

It has been difficult to see my friends come out in support of redefining marriage. Some go as far to say that those of us who support traditional marriage are full of hate.

I love those who identify as homosexual. I have many friends and mentors who identify as homosexual, and I love and respect them. EVERYONE was made in the image and likeness of God, no matter what sin they struggle with, and we all struggle with sin.

But I have to stand for what marriage really is...a permanent union between a man and a woman that has the potential to create life.




8 comments:

  1. I am also a catholic woman who wants to defend traditional marriage. Thank you for your blog.... we are not alone... many Christians feel as we do.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think many of those that want to "defend" Marriage, are confused.
    As a gay man, I don't want your church ceremony or your gods blessing.
    I DO want and demand that I be treated equal in the eyes of the Law.
    A legal marriage to my partner has no impact on your idea of marriage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your civil comment, Dean. I will always appreciate people who disagree with me in a respectful manner.

      However, we need to also look at this from another angle. If homosexual 'marriage' is fully recognized in all 50 states and in the eyes of federal law, will the Catholic Church be persecuted for refusing to perform the ceremony? I know of many law suits of wedding photographers/ bakers/caterers who have refused to service a homosexual wedding because it goes against their faith and are now fighting legal battles because of 'discrimination' laws. But, forcing someone to do something against their faith is also a form of discimination.

      'Marriage' in the eyes of the law is nothing different than two people living together and having sex. It is no longer permanent institution and the vows can be easily thrown away, like they didn't mean anything in the first place. In that case, any couple who is living together can be considered 'married'.

      A Marriage is the permanent union where two flesh become one. This can only be accomplished in the relationship between a man and a woman. It's just Natural Law and no civilization has ever recognized a 'Marriage' between people of the same sex, even civilizations that were homosexually tolerant.

      Now, one can argue that since the definiation of 'Marriage' has already been distorted in the eyes of the law (and society in general), then why prevent the law from distorting it even more? This is a question that is being debated all of the time and I understand both sides of the argument.

      But where does the distortion of Marriage end? There is a group in Germany who wants marriage to animals to be legally recognized. Or is Polygamy next?

      While a legal 'marriage' to your partner does not affect 'my idea of marriage', if you wanted to hire me to bake your wedding cake and I refuse because it is against my faith to participate in a non-Sacramental Marriage, you could sue me for discrimination...and with the way most of the law suits have been going in that area, probably force me to pay thousands of dollars. That does affect me.

      I didn't mean to leave such a long comment. Again, I thank you for your comment.

      Delete
  3. I am totally against any group or religion that tries to control or dictate what others can and cannot do in their personal adult relationships -- specifically here, regarding marriage. Equal rights should be the same for gay unions, as for any union between any man and woman. I see your response to Dean includes comments about possible concerns about discrimination charges for the Catholic church as a reason to not recognize equal rights. Just like I shouldn't assume I can walk into the dwelling of another religion, such as a a Mormon temple, and force them to allow me to do what I want (why, the Mormons ban those who smoke, drink, divorce, etc., from certain areas in their "holy" buildings), because I am not a member, then I don't see how the limitations of the Catholic church's beliefs can ever expect to hold any legitimate weight in this argument. In fact, I can go make my own religion and set my own rules, and that would be that. Organized religions get to do that, make up their own rules, just as the catholics have done for decades. As a recovering catholic myself, I find it ironic that many of the beliefs that were forced on me as a child are based on misinterpretations of the bible, in one of the many, many language translations. Makes me laugh every time! Why can't followers of religions do what they preach, and respect the religions and beliefs of others. When gay people marry, they have absolutely NO obligation to make people of the various religions happy or content, just like I don't have or accept any obligation to make any catholics happy about my choices. In fact, when I did marry my husband in 1992, several officials in the catholic church SHUNNED our marriage, because it is a biracial marriage, I have the letters (or lack thereof) to prove this. That, to me, is disgusting! No, sorry, I think the attempted coercion of Catholics to prevent gay marriages is a huge waste of time, and highly insulting.
    To answer one of your other questions...Yes, people who live together for a specific amount of time in the various states are considered "common law" spouses. I'm sure anyone can look up the laws as they pertain today, as they vary in different states.

    If someone has a business that serves the public, then they may want to consider hiring staff that would be willing to perform those services, such as making a wedding cake, because it is illegal to discriminate. We all know how these things work, though. If someone doesn't want to do business with another personk then it just never works out. Happens all the time. In addition, Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby are closed on Sundays...so that employees could attend church, and have a day with their families. Even if they changed the wording in their advertised justifications (which I don't know if they did from the original sharing, and don't care), the truth is that is why they started their policies in the first place. They still serve everyone in the public, even the straights, even the gays, even the judgmental, even those who are non-judgmental.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Amelia, I have a question for you on this, in all sincerity. If you took sex out of the conversation completely, would your view change? Let's say for the sake of argument that my wife and I have a very close (non sexual) relationship with another couple (we've known each other for decades), and something horrible happened to both families resulting in both wives to no longer be living. Then my friend and I who have the same family and society moral values, realize that we are having difficulties, both from a financial and scheduling stand point, and neither of us has a desire to bring another "Mom" figure into our child's lives. We then decide to go in together on a duplex and help each other financially and in taking care of the children as a collective. Would it be unreasonable to want the other man to be able to act as guardian for each other's children (just as a godparent would do) or in the best interests of the other father should one have medical issues? Would this not be basically the same thing as a marriage? If you would grant the same rights that a married couple would have to two people of the same gender needing all the same benefits (simply without any sexual context), what would the difference be if you simply added a sexual relationship? Or would you honestly state that I should not have the right to ask my children's godfather for assistance with my life, and if so let me through one last curve on this question; let's then state that the other male is their grandfather - should we then get those benefits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that you have posed a very interesting question, and I want to thank you for the civil way that you have posed it.

      If I am reading your question correctly, no, it is not the same thing as a marriage, A marriage is not two people living together, sex or no sex, for financial or emotional gain. If that were the case then all couples who cohabitate or people who have room mates would be considered 'married'. What you would have in the situation you have presented is an extended family living situation. And I'm not quite sure what 'benefits' you would be missing out on. One can name anyone guardian of their children, or executive of a will.

      A marriage is where two flesh has the potential to become one.

      Delete
  5. My interpretation of = and +
    When all are equal (=), the world will be plus'ed up (+)
    Equality is the real agenda ! Each person should have the ability to choose who they marry, or if they marry at all. No one should tell another how their wedding ceremony is held, where it is held, who will officiate, what flowers or none at all, not what clothes to wear, or who you marry.... not one religion to another, not one person to another. And if you register that marriage with the government, then you should get equal benefits, and equal challenges too.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BTW - I was born and raised Catholic, baptized my children in the Catholic church and pray to God that they never grow to be as intolerant as some who post here.

    ReplyDelete