AlphaGamDiva, thank you for your post. And I for one love your Bush-lovin', baptist-upbringing, right wing conservative butt.

Well, not your butt per se, but you know what I'm saying. ;)

Well said, honeychile.

::: putting on scholar's cap:::

It is a *lot* more complicated than this.

The issue is not about civil divorce but whether the sacrament actually took place. Catholics believe that marriage is not merely a civil contract, although there are civil aspects to it, but a literal sacramental bonding of souls that is a living representation of the intended bond between God and humanity. Hence why divorce and marriage issues are such a huge deal--a *lot* of theology behind it. A civil divorce does not break the sacramental bonding.
The only way someone can divorce and remarry legitimately in the church is to examine the marriage to determine whether or not this bonding took place. There are circumstances where it can be declared that it didn't (this is called an annulment). Examples of situations that would lead to annulment would include mental illness, agreeing to marry under duress, etc.

If anyone wants to hear more feel free to PM or email. I intended to read this only so as to learn and understand more from my GC buddies. Didn't mean to hijak. :) But since the issue was touched upon, I thought I'd add the 2 cents.

Adrienne
:D
(edited 'cause a smiley inserted itself in the message in the wrong place and looked really dumb)

Thankyou adduncan.

Obviously I'm not Catholic so I'm clear on the inner workings of the Catholic church and their beliefs towards marriage.

As a private institution they have every right to worship/govern etc, they way they choose, and I respect that.

They do not have the right to tell me how to live my life...they have every right not to agree with the way I live my life or my beliefs, but that's okay. (And this is not just the Church... if I was a memeber of the church or any organization for that matter I would follow their teachings, belief structure, rules, etc.)

We're all human so shouldn't we should have the same rights and be subject to the same responsibilities?

see, i would, IF my dad hadn't told me himself that no one would ever chose to be homosexual and that he believes that it is just a genetic trait some people happen to be born with. looking back at my childhood i think that it really explains my family's dynamics. Plus, the first person he dated after my mother died he apprently dated while in college. As well, i do have a sister who was concieved by invitro fertilization since her mothers are lesbians. she has never been subjected to the taunts that you assume go along with being raised in that type of enviroment as well. I believe that it doens't matter whether a parent is gay straight or Bi, as long as the children are in a nurturing and loving enviroment.

Yeah - that'll help prevent the spread of AIDS, right? :rolleyes:



This thread is pretty nuts - I'd just like to point out that the words "In God We Trust" on money do NOT mean, according to the letter of the law, that religion should carry any weight in the lawmaking process.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Why is anyone opposed to this I mean how is it going to affect you. Gay people are going to be gay no matter how many people complain about it. Those of you whom are more conservative should be happy that homosexual couples are actually wanting to be monogamous. The bottom line is if two persons love each other and want to dedicate themselves to each other through marriage it is not our place to tell them no.

I'm 100% in support of legalizing gay marriage. And that's all I'm going to say about that :)

Thats also what I dont understand. So many people on the extreme far right consider homosexuals unnaturally promiscuous, yet also dont want them to be in committed relationships and to seal that committment with a bond like marrage. I dont get it.

I totally hear you! While I personally feel that people don't take marriage vows seriously enough anymore, that is a PERSONAL DECISION. The government should never, ever, ever, ever play any role in this. We as individuals have the right to behave in any way that we wish. While I personally may not choose to behave in that way, others will, and that is their choice!!
i also really feel that it is not the business of the government who marries who, who sleeps with who, because this is none of their business. I personally don't care who marries who. Another person may. But why is that other person have the power to override a gay person's choice to marry another homosexual person by making a law against it. In my mind, that is totally wrong.
I think half the laws on the books are ridiculous and intrusive on people's private lifes. This is only one of many!

Are you kidding?

I was playing off a classic narrow-minded religious invocation to mock the consistent use of "them" to refer to the homosexual population, as it came off a bit odd to me. Comments like "At least they will be in a committed relationship!" sound to me an awful lot like "Gays are promiscuous by nature, and this will combat this", just euphemized.

I thought the ":rolleyes:" would emphasize that sarcasm, but apparently not

I'd never heard a good argument against gay marriage before I read this thread

I still haven't heard one.

There's a reason that most of people that are against gay marriage haven't said much in this thread. It's because they can't back up their opinion with a single logical supported statement.

As long as we're ignoring the idea of separation of church and state...

Consider the work of God: Who can make straight what he has made crooked?

-Eccl. 7:13

My take:

If two people, of any sex, color or religion decide that they want to bind themselves to be faithful and love each other for the rest of their lives...

Let them get married. It's not hurting you. It's not hurting me.


Murder is illegal because it takes away a person's right to live.

Gay marriage being illegal takes away a person's right to love.

For the record, I do not in any way, shape, or form believe in any Christian (or any organized religion's) doctrine.

After I sign off, I'm going to go pick a random book off the shelf and use it as my guidebook and moral code. That should be fun.

Chances are 50/50 that it would be more consistent. Even if it was Green Eggs and Ham. I can see the revised commandments now...

"Thou shalt not eat it with a fox.....
Thou shalt not eat it in a box......"

Sorry but I went to Catholic School for too many years to take organized religion seriously.

To all those who would argue that America was based on some sort of moral standard, I think you would be hard pressed to prove that people in the past were any better at adhering to said morals than in the modern day and age where we choose to follow ethics instead. Morals didn't stop slavery (money did, regardless of what our history books tell us). Morals didn't prevent Jim Crow. Morals didn't keep the US from putting Japanese-Americans in what amounted to concentration camps. All "morals" do is provide fodder for hypocrites.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally try not to get *too* opinionated or mouthy on these boards with my letters attached to what I say. I'm all for a debate, but too often, people attach what you say with your GLO and form opinions. I'm not saying any of y'all would, but it happens. So, that's why I choose not to delve too deeply into why I feel the way I do.
As for people basing their feelings on religion, they have the right to do that. People are entitled to feel the way they do even if their reasoning doesn't hold up in other people's eyes. Just because another person thinks their reasons are stupid, it's not going to change how they feel.