Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[Thomas_Peter]

Sorry, but that bucket don’t hold much water. If that was a legitimate concern, it would be a problem for the Church already. There are millions of heterosexual couples who currently have every legal right to marry, but do not meet the Catholic Church’s requirements for marriage. The Church even turns away Catholic couples who do not meet its requirements for marriage in the Church. The right to civil marriage does not grant you the right to a religious one. There’s absolutely no legal precedent to warrant such a concern. It’s just a scare tactic. Nothing more.

There was also no legal precedent forcing people to buy health insurance at one time either. Nobody thought that could ever happen in this country. I dont share your faith in the politicians who run our country. They have shown that they have no problem infringing on our other freedoms so why should they stop now?

 

[Sy_Noe]

The Truth is not a personal opinion. And for those who think Catholics “blindly” follow the Church, we should all know that informed obedience is what’s required.

It is a belief or faith that one knows the the truth though. You can say you know the truth because you believe you do because you have faith in what the CC informs. Though I’m not one to go around proclaiming I know for sure the truth… I don’t even feel a need to think I do… I also don’t have the faith you do. So what you believe is truth may not be what I believe.

 

[Sy_Noe]

OK, one more time for you and Thorolfr:

If you deny that there is such a thing as truth, that is, the truth, not just my truth and your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.

Soooo…If you acknowledge that truth exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not I or the Catholic Church correctly understands the truth of this matter.

I get so tired of this argument that everyone who either admits they are not as certain about the truth as faithful Catholics believe they are, or believe differently, then that somehow correlates into they are relativists and deny truth. Nothing in fact could be further from the truth. Just because they aren’t as certain as you believe you are, or have different beliefs, in no way means they deny there is ultimate truth.

And no we really can’t discuss it to the point of proving it. Because no matter where you start and end, there is much faith involved in something, someone, including in other humans.

 

[edwest2]

It has happened that candidates who gave speeches against gay marriage, once in office, changed their minds and voted for it. So you were tricked into voting for someone who did not adhere to his/her promises. Is it a sin not to vote, when it oftentimes happens that you are tricked into voting for something, but the promises made by the candidate are quickly forgotten after the election?

That’s not the issue. The issue is when same-sex marriage was on the ballot in Michigan, I asked myself: “Who needs my permission? Why is this on the ballot at all?” When same-sex marriage was rejected by voters, a letter appeared in a Detroit newspaper where the writer stated: “Michigan. The great hate state.”

As Catholics, we are required to vote. Not for a particular person but we are required to vote. If that person is dishonest after the fact, that is not my doing and it does not change the fact that choices need to be made. Take the current President. I read about the LGBT community’s growing impatience with what he promised and their not getting it. He took a lot of heat for not moving faster - until his views on gay marriage somehow “evolved.”

Unless you have a plan to change the system, this is what we have to work with. There are gay lobbyists.

Some people live in a totally “God is fiction” world. To them, whatever it takes to “get the numbers up” has got to be done, for however long it takes. This includes professing a monolithic view of what gay marriage is. The problem with that is gay marriages without fidelity to one person and gay divorce exists, so, no, it is not one monolithic thing. It also ignores other facts: the last time I was in the ER, my male friend was not asked about his relationship to me by anybody, and I can will my estate to anybody. To say “this is the only way” is not true.

And the will of the voters? Out the window. Why did they even bother if the whole point was to ignore all those against and go for a smaller group of targets like judges and politicians?

Ed

 

[Sy_Noe]

That’s not the issue. The issue is when same-sex marriage was on the ballot in Michigan, I asked myself: “Who needs my permission? Why is this on the ballot at all?” When same-sex marriage was rejected by voters, a letter appeared in a Detroit newspaper where the writer stated: “Michigan. The great hate state.”

As Catholics, we are required to vote. Not for a particular person but we are required to vote. If that person is dishonest after the fact, that is not my doing and it does not change the fact that choices need to be made. Take the current President. I read about the LGBT community’s growing impatience with what he promised and their not getting it. He took a lot of heat for not moving faster - until his views on gay marriage somehow “evolved.”

Unless you have a plan to change the system, this is what we have to work with. There are gay lobbyists.

Some people live in a totally “God is fiction” world. To them, whatever it takes to “get the numbers up” has got to be done, for however long it takes. This includes professing a monolithic view of what gay marriage is. The problem with that is gay marriages without fidelity to one person and gay divorce exists, so, no, it is not one monolithic thing. It also ignores other facts: the last time I was in the ER, my male friend was not asked about his relationship to me by anybody, and I can will my estate to anybody. To say “this is the only way” is not true.

And the will of the voters? Out the window. Why did they even bother if the whole point was to ignore all those against and go for a smaller group of targets like judges and politicians?

Ed

2 points. Obama’s position certainly has not been the only person’s to have evolved. And voters don’t have the right to vote to deny rights. That’s why so many courts have ruled bans in states were unconstitutional. I’m in one of those states. I voted yrs ago to allow SSM. I was unfortunately in the minority at the time. But courts have since ruled it was wrong for voters to deny the right and have ruled the ban unconstitutional. Now you may not agree with their rulings. That’s your prerogative I don’t always agree with court rulings either. And in any case by now who knows how such votes would turn out. Obama’s not the only one to have evolved.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I get so tired of this argument that everyone who either admits they are not as certain about the truth as faithful Catholics believe they are, or believe differently, then that somehow correlates into they are relativists and deny truth. Nothing in fact could be further from the truth. Just because they aren’t as certain as you believe you are, or have different beliefs, in no way means they deny there is ultimate truth.

Being Catholic or having other beliefs has nothing to do with truth. People have faith in many things that are not true. Intelligent people accept the truth and do not deny it simply because it is true. They do not need an organized religion or a guru to tell them something is right or wrong. Mankind has that ability.

I have found that people who reject the truth do so because they just don’t WANT to accept or recognize the truth for some personal reason, even when it hits them in the face. They can come up with all sorts of reasons but deep down inside they really cannot reject it.

And no we really can’t discuss it to the point of proving it. Because no matter where you start and end, there is much faith involved in something, someone, including in other humans.

You don’t need faith to recognize the truth.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Sad how many Catholics reject Church teaching and oppose the Christian faith on this issue.

It’s one thing for you to say Catholics are rejecting Catholic teaching. That’s fine if Catholic teaching opposes SSM. But incorrect to make a blanket statement about Christian faith. There are Christian denominations that will perform SSM ceremonies. The United Church of Christ denomination, if I’m not mistaken, comes to mind. And the Episcopal Church diocese where I live now allows its priests to perform SSM ceremonies now that SSM is legal in the state. It’s bishop issued a statement encouraging clergy to embrace all who seek to be married. But no priest is required to perform ceremonies. There may be others yet. I’m not familiar with every Christian denomination. I thought I saw where the Presbyterian USA denomination is also giving consideration to SSM. I realize you personally may question if these are Christian but they are still considered Christian ecclesial faith communities just to be clear.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Being Catholic or having other beliefs has nothing to do with truth. People have faith in many things that are not true. Intelligent people accept the truth and do not deny it simply because it is true. They do not need an organized religion or a guru to tell them something is right or wrong. Mankind has that ability.

I have found that people who reject the truth do so because they just don’t WANT to accept or recognize the truth for some personal reason, even when it hits them in the face. They can come up with all sorts of reasons but deep down inside they really cannot reject it.

You don’t need faith to recognize the truth.

Ok well we’re both part of mankind and what I believe/recognize as truth about homosexuality and marriage is certainly not what you believe. And yes deep down too. So I will maintain yes you do need at least some faith in whatever it is you’re basing your view of truth on. Otherwise you and I and others on the thread would deep down be on the same page. And clearly that is not the case. Now is everyone’s faith and truth going to be all true. Of course not. Not with the differences that exist. Unless the differences end up not mattering in the whole scheme of things at the end.

 

[Tomdstone]

As Catholics, we are required to vote.

If a Catholic is disillusioned with politics and does not believe politicians, would it be a mortal sin for him not to vote?

 

[Thorolfr]

It’s one thing for you to say Catholics are rejecting Catholic teaching. That’s fine if Catholic teaching opposes SSM. But incorrect to make a blanket statement about Christian faith. There are Christian denominations that will perform SSM ceremonies. The United Church of Christ denomination, if I’m not mistaken, comes to mind. And the Episcopal Church diocese where I live now allows its priests to perform SSM ceremonies now that SSM is legal in the state. It’s bishop issued a statement encouraging clergy to embrace all who seek to be married. But no priest is required to perform ceremonies. There may be others yet. I’m not familiar with every Christian denomination. I thought I saw where the Presbyterian USA denomination is also giving consideration to SSM. I realize you personally may question if these are Christian but they are still considered Christian ecclesial faith communities just to be clear.

My church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, also allows its pastors to marry same-sex couples

 

[LisaA]

My church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, also allows its pastors to marry same-sex couples

Which then begs the question why the insistence on civil recognition of these relationships? There seems to be no benefit, other than the selfish desires to get some sort of state goodies. But if sharing bennies is the real objective, it begs the question why gays think THEY are the only ones to deserve this special consideration. Is it all about sex? Should there be a test and a sworn statement that this is a person with whom I am having sexual relations? Else I can “marry” my dear friend or my example of the two sisters should be able to “marry” as well. Oh and the guy in Utah who wants his plural marriage recognized is working through the courts…so far a positive track for him. And now the dad and daughter who wish to wed.

What gays and Lesbians have done is to destroy any actual meaning or purpose to marriage.

 

[Sy_Noe]

My church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, also allows its pastors to marry same-sex couples

I’m glad to know this, Thorolfr, that SS couples in ELCA who have felt God’s call to receive the full blessings of their faith at long last have the opportunity. It may have taken time but then I don’t believe our human understanding is locked in a box. But instead can grow and evolve. Blessings and peace.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Which then begs the question why the insistence on civil recognition of these relationships? There seems to be no benefit, other than the selfish desires to get some sort of state goodies. But if sharing bennies is the real objective, it begs the question why gays think THEY are the only ones to deserve this special consideration

“THEY” aren’t the only ones. Catholics too get state marriage licenses and the benefit of their state’s recognition of their marriage and Catholic priest’s sign the licenses. Catholic priests of course will not sign licenses for SS couples. Only for heterosexual couples.

 

[Havard]

I’m glad to know this, Thorolfr, that SS couples in ELCA who have felt God’s call to receive the full blessings of their faith at long last have the opportunity. It may have taken time but then I don’t believe our human understanding is locked in a box. But instead can grow and evolve. Blessings and peace.

There’s no theological basis to believe this teaching could change.

I think religioussoup and his like are a lot more consistent in being up front in saying that they are “picking and choosing.” My friend’s (protestant) church in Germany broke up over gay marriage, but interestingly a lot of the backlash came from liberal-minded young people, because they knew the change in theology was a last-minute cobble-job to justify the result that the decision-makers wanted. It’s blatantly clear when people decide upon their conclusions first and then working backwards towards their arguments. And since the young people were already open about what beliefs they picked and chose, such as gay marriage and cohabitation, the whole business about this “new development” was clearly, embarrassingly dishonest.

 

[LisaA]

“THEY” aren’t the only ones. Catholics too get state marriage licenses and the benefit of their state’s recognition of their marriage and Catholic priest’s sign the licenses. Catholic priests of course will not sign licenses for SS couples. Only for heterosexual couples.

You’ve completely misunderstood. “They” being the homosexual cohort think that their relationship is the only one other than Natural Marriage that should receive the benefits of marriage. They react in outrage when others simply take advantage of the redefinition of marriage to reach some purpose…friends or relatives marrying for benefits or estate planning or the two men who “married” so they could enter a contest.

I THINK what gays and Lesbians want is for society to consider their relationship equivalent to Natural Marriage (a fallacy) and for others to seeminglyt dismiss the “seriousness” of their relationship and use the new laws for benefits outrages them.

So it’s a matter of I want what I want because I want it but to heck with other people who want the same thing.

 

[LisaA]

2 points. Obama’s position certainly has not been the only person’s to have evolved. And voters don’t have the right to vote to deny rights. That’s why so many courts have ruled bans in states were unconstitutional. I’m in one of those states. I voted yrs ago to allow SSM. I was unfortunately in the minority at the time. But courts have since ruled it was wrong for voters to deny the right and have ruled the ban unconstitutional. Now you may not agree with their rulings. That’s your prerogative I don’t always agree with court rulings either. And in any case by now who knows how such votes would turn out. Obama’s not the only one to have evolved.

Obama did not “evolve.” That is LAUGHABLE. He is simply another wet fingered politician who made statements based on which way political winds were blowing. He was for gay “marriage” before he was against it, before he was for it. The man is Proteus in a suit.

Voters have not denied anyone rights that others have. Marriage laws that apply to men do not have a “are you gay or straight test” but may limit a man to marrying a woman. Not just a straight man but any man is subject to the same law. As you have been told repeatedly, gay marriage is not the same right as others have had but a new right, to choose the sex of the person married. Two opposite sexes have been required in all forms of marriage since the beginning of civilization if not beforehand. Two opposite sex partners are required to create a child, marriage was the structure in which children were born. Ergo it takes a man and a woman to marry. Not just a straight man and believe me I know a lot of gay men who married women and Lesbians who’ve married men. They were not denied any rights not given to any other man or woman.

They want new rights.

 

[JimG]

My aunt and uncle are not able to have children for medical reasons but were granted marriage anyway. How were they “capable of marriage”, in your eyes?

I presume that your aunt and uncle, being man and woman, were able to have conjugal relations—marital sex. So yes they are capable of marriage. They do have complementary reproductive systems. Only man and woman are capable of engaging in marital relations. Fertility is not an issue. Man and woman can have conjugal sex; same sex couples can never have conjugal sex.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I THINK what gays and Lesbians want is for society to consider their relationship equivalent to Natural Marriage (a fallacy) and for others to seeminglyt dismiss the “seriousness” of their relationship and use the new laws for benefits outrages them.

So it’s a matter of I want what I want because I want it but to heck with other people who want the same thing.

Yes, exactly. I think it is really in the end a quest for social acceptance, equal footing, status. Equality under the eyes of the law is achievable through civil unions. But as you pointed out, that is not enough.

My guess is even after the victory, the same demons will still be around… We (The Intolerant) are not the real thorn.

 

[FollowChrist34]

So what do all of you think is going to happen now? With same-sex marriage on the way to becoming legal across the US and most of Western Europe and even in parts of Latin America, I doubt that this can be undone. I think that the Catholic Church and others opposed to same-sex civil marriage have lost this battle.

And it is a battle it is very important for the Christian to lose. I stand proud to lose the abortion battle too. The censure of fools is praise…and that is putting it lightly.

 

[Sy_Noe]

There’s no theological basis to believe this teaching could change.

Gen 2:18: “And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.” (Douay Rheims) For homosexuals that is another homosexual. And surely Biblical references to one flesh do not merely imply sex but to a much more profound human commitment two people create with each other.

And as has already been demonstrated childbearing is not a prerequisite for marriage thus an objection to SSM can not logically be made based on an inability to procreate.

1Cor 7:9 “But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.” (Douay Rheims)

God created homosexuals. Gay and straight marry based on attraction. Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex. Heterosexuals to the opposite.

Marriage has evolved over time. Not all that long ago interracial marriage was also banned by states.

The marriage commitment of 2 homosexuals will not any more destroy the institution of marriage than heterosexual marriages that end in divorce. Or for that matter celebrating what was believed and appeared to be a marriage and then annulling it later. If anything the love and committment of 2 homosexuals can even strengthen the institution of marriage.

Jesus chose to side with love, compassion, with empathy. And recognizing the good that all faithful monogamous unions, SS ones included, can bring to the table, things such as love, fidelity, kindness, etc is more important, I believe, for the Christian than rigidly adhering to a supposed traditional set of rules governing who can marry whom. That frankly didn’t even exist in much of the Bible.