‘New law will compel churches to offer same-sex marriages’

[Rence]

Is the church NOW required to perform marriages for divorced persons or any other couple they feel has an "impediment’ that would prevent sacramental marriage?

Doesn’t seem likely that the church would be required to marry a same sex couple when they refuse to marry opposite sex couples for various reasons.

This is just paranoia. The State in the US doesn’t even recognize Sacramental marriage, and the Church doesn’t recognize civil marriage for Catholics. The two are completely separate. The priest doesn’t even have to sign the marriage license. It’s not part of the Sacrament. If ever there is a day, which probably won’t happen, that priests are required to marry gay couples in order to fulfill their obligations acting as justices of the peace, they can simply not do them for anyone, and the result will simply be couples bringing the license already signed in city hall with them to the Church wedding. Seriously, find something else to stress about. Catholics living in Islam are truly under attack. Americans are not.

 

[Aussie_ukie]

This is just paranoia. The State in the US doesn’t even recognize Sacramental marriage, and the Church doesn’t recognize civil marriage for Catholics. The two are completely separate. The priest doesn’t even have to sign the marriage license. It’s not part of the Sacrament. If ever there is a day, which probably won’t happen, that priests are required to marry gay couples in order to fulfill their obligations acting as justices of the peace, they can simply not do them for anyone, and the result will simply be couples bringing the license already signed in city hall with them to the Church wedding. Seriously, find something else to stress about. Catholics living in Islam are truly under attack. Americans are not.

BRAVO!!! well said!
I was starting to think all Catholics were drama queens! lol

 

[fix]

no the govt is telling you that 2 people who love eachother are united under the Law of the land.

Marriage is not Religious, it has become religious over time, and in time it has become something that is both Religious and Civil now.

all you have to do is not get a marriage of your own!
that way your are following the commandments of your God.

but once again, it is not the governments responsibly to bring about the Catholic vision of the kingdom of heaven on earth, it is her responsibly to make sure all her citizens are equal under the law.

Christ himself said render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar …Civil Marriage belongs to Caesar in this case.

and as mentioned their are many religions who do not condemn homosexuality, Hindus, Pagans, many Anglican and Lutherans, some sects of Taoism and many others.
why should your concept of morality be put into law in when it may infringe of the rights of others???

Marriage is a natural institution that predates the Church. The Church is not asking the state to mandate the Catholic form of marriage. She is asking the state to not abuse its authority and redefine marriage as it cannot be redefined.

lets use an example: say 2 gay guys from a tolerant hindu sect love eachother, they have the full support of their spiritual community, but their faith says they must marry b4 they have sex. who are you to dictate to someone else religious or not if they can be married?

They have no right to civil recognition of such a faux marriage. What if a religion said that a woman is no longer a woman but table salt. Must the state redefine her from a person to table salt? See, it is not simply about a religious understanding it is about the natural moral law that all people can know.

you dont have to do anything…you dotn have to attend, you dont have to invite them over for a sunday roast, you just need to live and let live. if you want to denouce them to your children as vile sinners, then so be it, if you want go and listen to a bunch of angry catholic priests preach what I call hate (you would call it Gods Law) then your so entitled to…but let these poor guys follow their own conscience the way the Law allows you to follow yours!

Truth is hate to those who hate truth. I have to endure that propganda in schools to indoctrine our children and much else that is to come.

 

[Rence]

So you’re ok with people sinning and possibly choosing to give up eternal life? And you don’t think we should tell them of this?

There is no honor or merit in trying to force someone to be Catholic. If one is forced to outwardly display that they are Catholic due to unjust laws, they are not Catholic, but they are something else pretending to be Catholic in order to survive…The only thing burning heretics did was make true martyrs and a strong Protestant base which grew and grew.

You misunderstand the meaning of the word “freedom”.

Freedom does not mean the ability to do whatever you want.

No, but it does mean being able to make one’s own choices, including being able to choose one’s own religion and not being forced to follow someone else’s religion. Everyone thinks their religion is the true religion, or they wouldn’t be practicing that religion.

This “freedom to do anything” that people proclaim is not freedom, but slavery: Slavery to the flesh, slavery to the senses, and slavery to the things of the world. Every Catholic should strive for people to leave this slavery behind and embrace true freedom.

It’s is your own opinion that others who do not follow Catholicism are slaves. Being forced to be a religion that you are is slavery, not the other way around. People must come to Catholicism on their own. Trying to force people to follow Catholic laws and rules will just make them hate the Church.

 

[Rence]

BRAVO!!! well said!
I was starting to think all Catholics were drama queens! lol

Nope, just some people are For me, the less drama the better

For me it’s all about being a living example of my faith in God. People will know you by your actions (and inactions). You put out positivity and it comes back to you. You put out negativity, and it comes back back to you. So be positive so that people will know Catholics aren’t all full of drama, but are actually happy to have chosen to be Catholic and are doing it on their own

 

[fix]

frankly I fail to see much difference between yourself and Sharia Law.
you really just want to live in a Theocracy and u want all others to as well.

I think you need to read the history of Modern Democracy, and how it differs from a Theocracy before we continue this discussion.

Talk about drama.

 

[Aussie_ukie]

Marriage is a natural institution that predates the Church. The Church is not asking the state to mandate the Catholic form of marriage. She is asking the state to not abuse its authority and redefine marriage as it cannot be redefined.

of course it can be redefined, it’s been redefined all through history! Marriage was often more about Land and property contracts and strategic alliances with political powerful families then it was about love.
and there is evidence for homosexual-like unions in Ancient China, certain times in Ancient Greece and Rome etc. so dont give me BS that Marriage has always been static. anyone who reads and know abit about history can dismiss that claim.

They have no right to civil recognition of such a faux marriage. What if a religion said that a woman is no longer a woman but table salt. Must the state redefine her from a person to table salt? See, it is not simply about a religious understanding it is about the natural moral law that all people can know.

non sequitur, ridiculous comparison!

Truth is hate to those who hate truth. I have to endure that propganda in schools to indoctrine our children and much else that is to come.

but you do not define truth to the millions who do not share your faith. you have no right to impose your truth on those who don’t believe it.

 

[Aussie_ukie]

Talk about drama.

I don’t see the drama in asking someone who clearly cannot tell the difference between a theocracy and a democracy to educate themselves so it’s not a circular discussion.

Cause I for one am tired of trying to explain that biblical concepts such as ‘freedom’ are not what the constitutions of modern western nations mean when they use the word.

and Im also tried of the rhetoric that morally other religion have no right to exist. once again that argument only works if your living in the papal states cira 1400 AD not in the democratic west in 2012 AD!

 

[fix]

of course it can be redefined, it’s been redefined all through history!

No, it has not.

Marriage was often more about Land and property contracts and strategic alliances with political powerful families then it was about love.

Who says love is the issue? Can two sisters get married claiming love?

and there is evidence for homosexual-like unions in Ancient China, certain times in Ancient Greece and Rome etc. so dont give me BS that Marriage has always been static. anyone who reads and know abit about history can dismiss that claim.

Aberrations do not mean there is no one authentic definition.

non sequitur, ridiculous comparison!

not

but you do not define truth to the millions who do not share your faith. you have no right to impose your truth on those who don’t believe it.

2+2=15?

 

[fix]

I don’t see the drama in asking someone who clearly cannot tell the difference between a theocracy and a democracy to educate themselves so it’s not a circular discussion.

Look you are arguing from a false premise. The Catholic Church is not asking the USA to impose the Catholic form of marriage on people.

Cause I for one am tired of trying to explain that biblical concepts such as ‘freedom’ are not what the constitutions of modern western nations mean when they use the word.

The problem is not the definition. The problem is too many refuse to accept objective truth. IOW, they do not want to stop doing what they are doing thus claim it is “freedom”.

and Im also tried of the rhetoric that morally other religion have no right to exist. once again that argument only works if your living in the papal states cira 1400 AD not in the democratic west in 2012 AD!

People have rights. Error has no rights.

 

[curlycool89]

Truth is hate to those who hate truth. I have to endure that propganda in schools to indoctrine our children and much else that is to come.

Dude, that should be on a giant billboard for everyone to see. That should really be our motto or something.

I just can’t say enough about how much I like that phrase.

I think you need to read the history of Modern Democracy, and how it differs from a Theocracy before we continue this discussion.

You with to lecture me? History is one of my favourite subjects. Historical fiction is one of my favourite genres.

As Churchill said, “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms we’ve tried.” Democracy can quickly become a tyranny of the majority or an oligarchy of the minority, so don’t pretend that democracy is perfect. Any form of government should always be grounded in natural law and good morals. That’s not a theocracy (theocracy is such a straw man now a days used by people who freak out at not having absolute “freedom”, don’t be a drama queen).

There is no honor or merit in trying to force someone to be Catholic. If one is forced to outwardly display that they are Catholic due to unjust laws, they are not Catholic, but they are something else pretending to be Catholic in order to survive…The only thing burning heretics did was make true martyrs and a strong Protestant base which grew and grew.

I never said anything about forcing people to become Catholic (something I am vehemently opposed to actually. You can’t force faith). That doesn’t mean we stay silent on issues though. We still have to speak the truth; we do a disservice to our fellow man to do nothing.

No, but it does mean being able to make one’s own choices, including being able to choose one’s own religion and not being forced to follow someone else’s religion. Everyone thinks their religion is the true religion, or they wouldn’t be practicing that religion.

But there can only be 1 true religion (or none as the atheists would say). You can still be in objective slavery even if your religion says it’s “freedom”.

but you do not define truth to the millions who do not share your faith. you have no right to impose your truth on those who don’t believe it.

And yet Truth is still Truth, no matter how many people deny it.

GK Chesterton said “We don’t need a religion that is right when we are right; we need a religion that is right when we are wrong”. People hate the truth because they think it restricts them, but the reality is that the Truth leads to true freedom. It doesn’t matter if people don’t acknowledge it, it doesn’t make it less true. Philosophically speaking, what is true is true, people’s belief or non-belief in it doesn’t make it any more or less true because it just IS.

 

[Aussie_ukie]

No, it has not.

yeah guess all the scholarly websites on the internet, Wikipedia, Britannica etc are all wrong then aye.

maybe it was devil who put the archaeological remains of same sex union in the ground, just to confuse us…you know like he did with dinosaur bones and fosils, to make us think the world is billions of years older than the bible says…tut tut! and LOL

 

[fix]

yeah guess all the scholarly websites on the internet, Wikipedia, Britannica etc are all wrong then aye.

Perhaps a 9th grade knowledge of history would lead one to believe that?

maybe it was devil who put the archaeological remains of same sex union in the ground, just to confuse us…you know like he did with dinosaur bones and fosils, to make us think the world is billions of years older than the bible says…tut tut! and LOL

Yea, baby everyone was “gay”. It is those mean old white males from Europe who hid all the real facts from us.

 

[Aussie_ukie]

Perhaps a 9th grade knowledge of history would lead one to believe that?

Yea, baby everyone was “gay”. It is those mean old white males from Europe who hid all the real facts from us.

aww there is plenty of documented evidence of same sex unions in hindu culture dating back thousands of years. there are records and stories of 2 egyptian lovers Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum (I do not know if they were married or not, but they were certainly an item and well respected servants) and the history of china is filled with same sex unions,

of course all these unions were nothing like our definition of marriage today…but that is cause as I said marriage is in a state of flux, it has changed, and will continue to change. I understand that Catholic Marriage is unchangeable but that does not mean civil marriage has to be.

 

[fix]

aww there is plenty of documented evidence of same sex unions in hindu culture dating back thousands of years. there are records and stories of 2 egyptian lovers Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum (I do not know if they were married or not, but they were certainly an item and well respected servants) and the history of china is filled with same sex unions,

of course all these unions were nothing like our definition of marriage today…but that is cause as I said marriage is in a state of flux, it has changed, and will continue to change. I understand that Catholic Marriage is unchangeable but that does not mean civil marriage has to be.

Aberrations do not prove your point. They only show that there are always people who act wrongly.

 

[Theophorus]

why should civil marriage only between a man and woman??? that’s your opinion. and its colored by your faith.
Civil marriages and indeed religious marriage (b4 Christianity) has kept changing and evolving.

now I understand the Catholic objection and that the Catholic Church has the right to keep Catholic Marriage between a man and woman…but why should our faith define marriage for those who don’t believe in our faith?

this goes back to the classic ‘separation of church and state’ debate, and sadly it seems clear to me that Catholics only support ‘separation of church and state’ when it suits them to do so.

The gay civil marriage issue will determine if the Catholic Church and other faith groups are actually serious about the ‘separation of church and state’, or if they are just waiting to jump out and try to declare a theocracy all over again!

Thats your opinion and it’s coloured by your post-modern philosophy.

Marriage is not a social construct governed by either the political state or by the church, nor is it something which either one can change at a whim. in a sense there is no true difference between the matter(man and woman) of what you call catholic marraige and what you call civil marraige. Both are one and the same institution which predates church and state. Although one is contracted sacramentally the other civilly.To try and frame it in terms of State Vs. Church is nonsensical.

Marriage as a bond between people has always been between man and woman(granted in some cultures it wasn’t always a one to one ratio but it has been man and woman) which has spousal unity and stability for procreation at its core, and thats not my Catholic faith talking, thats simply human anthropology. I’m not denying that homosexual partnerships have existed in human histtory nor that they continue to exist I’m saying that they are not now nor never were they marriages.

Marriage is a natural institution that predates the Church. The Church is not asking the state to mandate the Catholic form of marriage. She is asking the state to not abuse its authority and redefine marriage as it cannot be redefined.

Exactly!

 

[rlg94086]

yeah guess all the scholarly websites on the internet, Wikipedia, Britannica etc are all wrong then aye.

I haven’t read all your posts, but the use of “scholarly websites” and Wikipedia in the same sentence is absolutely hilarious.

 

[rlg94086]

Aberrations do not prove your point. They only show that there are always people who act wrongly.

Exactly. I could see someone in the future pointing to this article on a “scholarly” site like Wikipedia, as evidence of why marriage doesn’t even have to be two humans.

wcti12.com/news/30329815/detail.html

 

[Dawnia]

fix;9220482:

No, it has not.

yeah guess all the scholarly websites on the internet, Wikipedia, Britannica etc are all wrong then aye.

 

[Cormacnl]

No.

Marriage whether you call it civil, religious, or whatever is something that occurs between man and woman. Now the church will not ‘marry’ same sex couples any more than she will ‘marry’ grapefruit, the very nature of marraige lies in the unity of man and woman.

Government(in the U.K and elsewere) has already provided a legal framework for those who seek legal recognition of their contractual partnership which includes, as far as I’m aware, the legal benefits associated with marraige.

You are quite entitled to your opinion of the nature of marriage. So, won’t you do others the courtesy of allowing them their opinions too?

If your only problem is the use of the word ’marriage’ in the case of same sex couples surely this is very minor indeed.

Here in the Netherlands we have marriage for heterosexual couples and marriage for same sex couples. Newsflash, they don’t cancel each other out like matter and anti-matter. They exist alongside each other without a problem.

And I am sure if a couple - be they heterosexual or homosexual - want, in the privacy of their own home, to refer to their union as a grapefruit that is okay too. It would only become a problem if some couples started insisting they were the only ones with the right to be in a grapefruit relationship, and that any other couple who claimed to be in a grapefruit were not entitled to claim the exalted state of grapefuitism.

Marriage, as a term for a particular form of union, existed before Christianity; it has existed alongside Christianity and it will probably exist long after Christianity has mutated into something else.