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

Dear Halle,

We will have to agree to disagree.

I do think there is most definitely a connection because I know alot about youth--worked w/teens in Sunday school, raised two into young adulthood, etc...

Lots of priests and church workers will tell you *exactly* the same things I am telling you.

I didn't insinuate that being with gays is going to make a person gay.

I said that a culture that promotes immorality as moral (gay marriage as normal, for instance) is going to have alot of problems because of it...and they already do. A recent study of college students revealed that a large number have mental health issues that are not being dealt with.

Raising your children well in today's world is only half the battle.

Much changes when they go out into the immoral world of college and want to somehow fit in, after being in the close enclave of community, family, church, etc.

Hey, but maybe all this only happens only in the North East!!

As for schools, Roman Catholic high school kids are even wilder in many cases, and largely more atheist than in public school--I know because my daughter went to a lovely small RC academy for girls.

Speaking to the sister/headmistress there, though being in her early sixties was also very aware of what was really going on in the world with our youth, (sex, drugs, etc.) and she tried to address it, and I gave her much credit for that awareness and for her concern.

As for home schooling, not every mother, every family situation, or every child has the temperament to do it--though for those who do, good for them. It would be nice, however, if our schools were still like they were in the 1950's and 1960's, and people did not have to homeschool.

I really am surprised at how many Christians do not care if every immoral act is legal in this country...it must be a generational thing, and I am starting to feel old. I just cannot understand it.

Kind Regards,
Alice

P.S. Out of respect for the many parents I know of these college aged children, including children of clergy, who may have gone astray in college, I do think that this statement comes across as somewhat unfair and judgemental. In Greek there is a saying: "do not say judgemental/big/ statements" (because it may happen to you too)

Halle:

I think you, too, miss the point. Would you and Alexis please give me the date when the government "legistate(d) things" in the area of moral values? I know that these lawas were not passed in my lifetime and I'm better than half a century old by just shy of ten years.

The common law tradition that we have dates from England and is centuries old. Even earlier it is based on Roman law, a system better than two millenia old. The Church leavened the system, but it did so because these systems passed through the cultures of people who had been evangelized. In no place did it ever get things done without the civil authority being in full agreement.

There are many things that we don't allow and they are all based on the idea that what is prohibited is for the good of the society, its future, and the way in which its consensus has brought people together in a common life under those boundaries. Civilizations have fallen once the idea of consensus has eroded.

But just for the fun of it, when was the law passed that "discriminated" against two people of the same sex who wanted to "marry"? How about a date? And how about the legislature that did it?

In Christ,

BOB

Hmmm. So were the "Prince of Wales" and Mrs. Fitzherbert married or not?

Fr. Serge

Father Serge:

Father bless!!

Good question. What did the civil authorities in the UK say at the time?

BOB

ALEXIS:

I am moving this whole thread to Town Hall since it has quickly moved out of the realm of this particular section's purpose.

In the Faith section, we are concerned with matters of the Faith and building each other up in it. A discussion which quickly moves to relativism on a very clear-cut issue of Church teaching does not fit this area.

May I suggest that by Baptism we are called to learn the Church's position--because it is Christ's position--and not only live it, but promote it publicly and privately. We are called to put aside our own doubts and learn the reasons behind Church teaching so that we will be better apologists and teachers by our word and example. We are not called to any type of wishy-washy relativism. The Lord warns He will "vomit out of My Mouth" those who are lukewarm.

We're called to suffer for taking a counter-cultural stand on all these issues. We will be misunderstood, ridiculed, branded as intolerant (which is not a Christian virture anyway; it's a Masonic virtue), marginalized, rejected, and persecuted actively. I can say this because at one point or another I've experienced it all.

But we are not called or allowed to waffle on important points of Faith, morals, or doctrine when we are pushed into a corner or challenged by the world around us, or even by those who profess to be our co-religionists.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob,

Legislating morality like Prohibition, laws against sodomy, hate crime laws, etc.

Bob, you seem to be implying that those who do not see why gay marriage is not, given our Constitution, legal in this country, are somehow denying a Truth of the Faith. I have to admit I think that is a very dangerous mistake to make. For the last time, I will reiterate that I fully consent to the Church's infallible teachings on the reality of marriage and what is consists of; the Church has not declared or taught that believing that the State has to legislate "marriage" just as the Church does is part of the Catholic Faith.

Alexis

Alexis,

One reason why you're getting so many dissatisfying answers is that your question in essence is less about gay marriage and more about the relationship between Church and state.

The question really is, with gay marriage being merely one example, "what should the Church's role be in seeking to influence the state with regard to their position on a given topic?"

Given the fact that this is supposed to be a democracy, and the government is supposed to enact legislation according to the will of the people, there is certainly no harm in the Church putting in her two cents' worth, especially when it is a matter in which the Church has a clear moral teaching.

The key to all this is that the Church is NOT acting here as a powerful minority, somehow using its influence to impose its will on a reluctant majority. If Church members disagree, they are even free to vote their own consciences (as we recently discussed with regard to voting for Obama). I believe this is as it should be. People voted for the "one man, one woman" amendments because it was a concept they believed in--not because they were coerced into doing so.

Furthermore, it must be recognized that being members of the Church does not necessarily take people away from the influence of the world around them. If the Church were not to reiterate its teaching on a given issue at a time when it is being called into question by the "secular world," people will be more inclined to accept the arguments of those favoring the opposite position. And so it goes ...


Peace,
Deacon Richard

For what it is worth...

It strikes me that we have to critically examine ourselves here and ask why the teaching on marriage is not persuasive to the culture at large. I think that there are several parts to an answer to that. However, I think that part of the problem is a failure to adequately articulate Christian anthropology that undergirds the teaching on marriage. For instance, the recent letter by the Orthodox bishops regarding Prop 8 in California merely asserts the Orthodox position without ever really explaining it. They could/should have proclaimed the Gospel and the Orthodox understanding of sexuality and marriage and its relationship to homosexual marriage. To do less than make a presentation that is intelligible to the culture is, especially in this context, a missed opportunity that fails to help evangelize.

One thing that the gay marriage lobby has done successfully is to set the terms of the debate on tolerance and fairness. The Church has to proclaim why fairness is not enough and why fairness is not the proper language for the discussion, ala Fr. Schmemann of blessed memory. The reduction of the debate and the Church's response in the terms of mere ethics/morality, has so far conceded the debate becuase there is no proclamation of the theology of sexuality and its rootedness in the Gospel.

Alexis:

I never said nor implied this at all. I challenged your mistaken idea that there was some sinister plot to deprive people of their "right to marriage," an idea that has no basis: there is no right to marriage for anyone as another poster has stated and defended.

I also challenged you to provide me with an answer to the accusation that there was some law passed within memory and what the circumstances of its passage were. You have failed to answer that question. However, the answer to that question provides the answer to your initial query about this issue.

I also asked you to deal with the issue within the context of the idea of groups and societies--something that is reasonable since that is where it belongs. It is not a stand-alone issue.

You've also failed to state what basis you have or we all ought to have in changing the definition of marriage--a definition that has begun to be enshrined int he constitutions of about 30 states at this writing. We've also seen through the efforts of people in CA through Prop 8 that the citizens there have defined what it means to be married--something usurped by their state Supreme Court earlier.

Our Federal Constitution does not stand in a vacuum. It, and all the others in each state, are predicated on the history of law developed through Western history over the last two plus millenia. So the attempt to find new "rights" in it continues the activist stance of judges and otehrs who have found so many new "rights" that have turned the people's will upside down in the past two generations.

What I am saying in regard to this issue is that Christians cannot waffle on this and call themselves Christian. That's something I will step up to and admit. Aside from trying to discuss the defintion of what marriage is, how that definition fits into arbitrary limitations extant in every society in human history, and moving to try to understand the implications of arbitrarily altering it with some mistkane notion of justice or fairness, I have stated clearly and without hestitation what the Apostolic Churches hold to regardless of what other issues on which we may disagree. For the Christian, there are some issues that are not negotiable. As Pope Benedict preached prior to the opening of the Conclave wherein he was elected, relativism is a dangerous thing and needs to be challenged.

BOB

Bob,

Good point. It reminds me of how the revisionists will speak of the Christian Right "encroaching" on the religious freedoms this country has enjoyed for the last 220 years, without any reference to the fact that generic Protestantism was essentially a state religion right up until 1960, when Mrs. O'Hair succeeded in persuading the Supreme Court that "freedom from religion" was essentially a right guaranteed by our Constitution.

With regard to "gay marriage," however, I think the real issue is that we really can't even guess what all the implications would be if such a thing becomes a standard throughout the country. The most obvious one that comes to mind is pressure on the churches to accept gay marriages or lose tax exempt status. Another would be more and more gay priests (yes, there are lots of them in the RCC!) taking advantage of the situation and "coming out," hoping to force Rome's hand on this and other gay issues.

However, that would just be the tip of the iceberg. Once gay marriage has full legal status identical to that of heterosexual marriage, these marriages will be regarded as identical in every way as far as the law is concerned. Actions that are perfectly legal right now will be criminalized, and we can't even imagine right now what they all will be ...


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Interesting topic. Many have posted really good responses here but I would like to especially applaud Alice and Bob for their insights and opinions and also thank LM for the Scripture references.

To me the term "gay marriage" is as oxymoronic as it gets.

I feel there is no reason government needs to rule at all on this subject. If corporate America and individual companies wish to allow benefits to named "significant others" of their employees then so be it. There also are ways to protect assets and designate beneficiaries without being "married".

I sense this agenda is being pushed by a very small but powerful/empowered minority.

I see these two statements as being completely contradictory to one another.

If "gay marriage" is oxymoronic, does it not stand to reason that the efforts being made to give full legal standing to what is in reality sheer falsehood should be opposed?

One thing I can guarantee all of you--when a lie has the force of law, innocent people will suffer as a result.

These marriage amendments are clearly a stop-gap measure, given the growing acceptance of the whole gay agenda in this country, but the fact that a great number of people have taken the trouble to get them on the ballot in their states and a greater number of people have voted for them definitely says something. To my mind, this is as "grass-roots" as you can get, and an example of democracy at its best.

I agree with this last statement wholeheartedly, but clearly for some proponents of gay rights this is not enough. They believe they should have the same respect as heterosexual married people, but are concerned that they will never get it as long as their union has this kind of second-class status and is not considered a true marriage.

I don't understand this last statement at all--unless perhaps you're talking about the proponents of gay marriage (which is completely outside the context of your other statements). What possible evidence do you have to support such a statement?


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Deacon Richard,

This is a long thread with lots to digest. Forgive me for not making my statements clearer.

By stating "I feel there is no reason government needs to rule at all on this subject" I meant, in my opinion, "gay 'marriage'" is not worthy of consideration and there should not even be a need for the discussion to be tabled by our lawmakers.

"I sense this agenda is being pushed by a very small but powerful/empowered minority."

Yes, I was writing of "proponents" of gay marriage such as gay activists and those in the entertainment industry who view homosexuality and immorality as being normal and who bring this agenda to us and our youth via TV, movies, radio etc. Have you watched MTV and some of the shows that condone and glamorize the lifestyle? The message isn't in the least subliminal. They put it right in your face in living color and they tell you it's okay.

Again, sorry if my post was vague. I'm not up for a Pulitzer this year and don't expect to be any time soon. I hope this post clears things up a bit, though it's very late, I'm tired and probably confusing you even more.

Bill

Thank you dear Bill. Finally someone who is also aware of today's youth culture!

When I had teens, all of a sudden I found myself immersed in their music and culture--(and can say that, being young at heart, I even enjoyed alot of their music and culture), so I know the current trends and our popular culture as dictated by all the forms of media...

I believe that if one wants to raise one's children to one's own Christian values, that ignorance or denial about the influences they are immersed in from the media and society is not bliss.

The only way to relate to the young is to know about, and to even try enjoying doing with them some things that they enjoy.

If we don't know anything about our youth's culture, which, as you said is largely dictated by Hollywood; or if we ignore and/or deny its existence or its influence on young minds, then we do not allow for the golden opportunity of having important discussions with them to challenge and counteract their indoctrination.

I want to thank you again, Bill, for validating what I have said many times on this forum-- for sometimes it feels as if I am a lone voice crying out in the wilderness!!

Your above paragraph says it all.

In Christ,
Alice

P.S. Speaking of popular culture, I was waiting somewhere the other day when I started browsing one of those US magazines about all the stars. There was a celebrity wish list for Christmas and Elton John said that he wanted "his husband" to buy him something or other. I admire and have enjoyed Elton John as a musician, but there was something quite unsettling about reading that sentence.

A few years ago, the NY Times started putting gay couples in their wedding announcements along with heterosexual couples. While some may find that 'progressive/liberal/admirable/just', etc., (and though I have absolutely nothing against gay people, because I do not judge anyone's choices or sins) I also found that quite unsettling...some people like to say that it is not right for Christians to impose their morality on others, but I find that those who push forward the gay agenda are imposing their morality on us.

The state should get out of the marriage business and simply recognize civil unions.