Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[FollowChrist34]

The Catholic Church is not going to be able to convince non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics about this issue if they use arguments about the nature of marriage or the purpose of sex that none of these people find convincing. People who are not convinced that all sex must be open to procreation or that marriage is mainly about raising children will not be bothered by the fact that many heterosexual married couples use birth control or that some couple deliberately choose not to have any children. So why would they be bothered by the fact that two gay men on their own cannot produce any children?

Therefore, making an argument about gay relationships being “sterile” will not be very convincing to a lot of people and talking about gay relationships being “disordered” will also not go very far since this a part of Catholic lingo that only other Catholics will understand.

I am not sure many Catholics disagree with your assessment here. I think you are correct that these arguments will not convince the secular public. To me this is really the exact same situation we have with the right to life vs. the right to choose. Don’t be surprised if the pro and anti-gay marriage groups breakdown into these same divisions on this issue as that one; I mean the exact same people dividing pretty much into these two groups as they do with abortion: pro gay marriage / right to choose and anti gay marriage / right to life. (and they will stay that way) Same mentality really, on both sides.

 

[LisaA]

The Catholic Church is not going to be able to convince non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics about this issue if they use arguments about the nature of marriage or the purpose of sex that none of these people find convincing. People who are not convinced that all sex must be open to procreation or that marriage is mainly about raising children will not be bothered by the fact that many heterosexual married couples use birth control or that some couple deliberately choose not to have any children. So why would they be bothered by the fact that two gay men on their own cannot produce any children?

Therefore, making an argument about gay relationships being “sterile” will not be very convincing to a lot of people and talking about gay relationships being “disordered” will also not go very far since this a part of Catholic lingo that only other Catholics will understand.

Which begs the question why do you come on a Catholic list and tell Catholics not to accept the Church’s teaching…basing this on what might convince non-Catholics to accept them…I mean you really think we’re going to be convinced to abandon our faith to appeal to those who don’t even understand it? Really?

Further you again twist the issue into a knot. I don’t know whether or not people will be bothered about two gay guys raising children, particularly when the activists and media always portray a sassy and entertaining pair and their oh so precious child, but they should be concerned with the redefinition of marriage because it is a huge change in social structure and renders the term marriage meaningless. We have seen numerous social experiments that were supposed to solve all of these societal ills…no fault divorce, now children will live in a home that is filled with peace and harmony!..abortion…no more “unwanted children!” and the acceptance of single motherhood with the sperm donor having no contact with his child…yes these have worked out well haven’t they?

So I am quite skeptical that this “isn’t gonna hurt my marriage so I don’t care.” attitude will continue the downward spiral of civility, responsibility and productivity in this country.

 

[Lion_IRC]

But one does choose both the sex and skin colour of the person one chooses to marry.

No I dont think the definition of the word “marriage” should afford people the automatic right to choose the gender or number or species or age of the person/people to whom they wish to be married.

If you want to create a new word for some different lifestyle combination, then by all means argue your case. But dont lets pretend that marriage could mean anything we claim it to mean.

Otherwise, lets call some women husbands and some men wives.
Lets call monogamy…polygamy. And let married men call themselves bachelors.
Let’s create a new category of marital fidelity called “sleeping around”.

Just as you feel that “very strong justification is required” to force ones’ views on another person as regards who they should be allowed to marry, I equally feel that very strong justification is needed from people who belatedly want to change the long-standing status quo. All we have so far is;
*The argument from eros/desire. (If it feels good do it.)
*The argumentum ad baculum. (Gay people will self-harm if you dont give them what they want.)
*The argument from finance. (Govt. tax/welfare bias towards gender-balanced marriage.)
*The argument from stigma. (Why wont everybody approve of my lifestyle?)

…Sexual preferences for particular genders or skin colours are perfectly natural. So it seems that you have no problem with same sex marriage.

I think same sex "marriage’ is unnatural.
…unless you can find me some examples of animals getting married.

 

[Lion_IRC]

But one does choose both the sex and skin colour of the person one chooses to marry.

No I dont think the definition of the word “marriage” should afford people the automatic right to choose the gender or number or species or age of the person/people to whom they wish to be married.

If you want to create a new word for some different lifestyle combination, then by all means argue your case. But dont lets pretend that marriage could mean anything we claim it to mean.

Otherwise, lets call some women husbands and some men wives.
Lets call monogamy…polygamy. And let married men call themselves bachelors.
Let’s create a new category of marital fidelity called “sleeping around”.

Just as you feel that “very strong justification is required” to force ones’ views on another person as regards who they should be allowed to marry, I equally feel that very strong justification
is needed from people who belatedly want to change the long-standing status quo.

All we have so far is;
*The argument from eros/desire. (If it feels good do it.)
*The argumentum ad baculum. (Gay people will self-harm if you dont give them what they want.)
*The argument from finance. (Govt. tax/welfare bias towards gender-balanced marriage.)
*The argument from stigma. (Why wont everybody approve of my lifestyle?)

…Sexual preferences for particular genders or skin colours are perfectly natural. So it seems that you have no problem with same sex marriage.

I think same sex "marriage’ is unnatural.
…unless you can find me some examples of animals getting married.

 

[Lion_IRC]

But one does choose both the sex and skin colour of the person one chooses to marry.

No I dont think the definition of the word “marriage” should afford people the automatic right to choose the gender or number or species or age of the person/people to whom they wish to be married.

If you want to create a new word for some different lifestyle combination, then by all means argue your case. But dont lets pretend that marriage could mean anything we claim it to mean.

Otherwise, lets call some women husbands and some men wives.
Lets call monogamy…polygamy. And let married men call themselves bachelors.
Let’s create a new category of marital fidelity called “sleeping around”.

Just as you feel that “very strong justification is required” to force ones’ views on another person as regards who they should be allowed to marry, I equally feel that very strong justification is needed from people who belatedly want to change the long-standing status quo. All we have so far is;
*The argument from eros/desire. (If it feels good do it.)
*The argumentum ad baculum. (Gay people will self-harm if you dont give them what they want.)
*The argument from finance. (Govt. tax/welfare bias towards gender-balanced marriage.)
*The argument from stigma. (Why wont everybody approve of my lifestyle?)

…Sexual preferences for particular genders or skin colours are perfectly natural. So it seems that you have no problem with same sex marriage.

I think same sex "marriage’ is unnatural.
…unless you can find me some examples of same sex animals getting married.

 

[Mulligan2]

The Catholic Church is not going to be able to convince non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics about this issue if they use arguments about the nature of marriage or the purpose of sex that none of these people find convincing. People who are not convinced that all sex must be open to procreation or that marriage is mainly about raising children will not be bothered by the fact that many heterosexual married couples use birth control or that some couple deliberately choose not to have any children. So why would they be bothered by the fact that two gay men on their own cannot produce any children?

Therefore, making an argument about gay relationships being “sterile” will not be very convincing to a lot of people and talking about gay relationships being “disordered” will also not go very far since this a part of Catholic lingo that only other Catholics will understand.

A very reasonable observation. Thanks for posting.

 

[YADA]

…And one cannot change those. (Ignoring the sticky issue of what is actually ‘changed’ by a ‘sex change’ operation.)…

What is sticky? A person who under goes a “sex change” does not actually change their sexual gender … genetically they remain the same sex …what they dois surgically and chemically modify the normal presenation of their gender to mimic the opposite …

 

[edwest2]

Which begs the question why do you come on a Catholic list and tell Catholics not to accept the Church’s teaching…basing this on what might convince non-Catholics to accept them…I mean you really think we’re going to be convinced to abandon our faith to appeal to those who don’t even understand it? Really?

Further you again twist the issue into a knot. I don’t know whether or not people will be bothered about two gay guys raising children, particularly when the activists and media always portray a sassy and entertaining pair and their oh so precious child, but they should be concerned with the redefinition of marriage because it is a huge change in social structure and renders the term marriage meaningless. We have seen numerous social experiments that were supposed to solve all of these societal ills…no fault divorce, now children will live in a home that is filled with peace and harmony!..abortion…no more “unwanted children!” and the acceptance of single motherhood with the sperm donor having no contact with his child…yes these have worked out well haven’t they?

So I am quite skeptical that this “isn’t gonna hurt my marriage so I don’t care.” attitude will continue the downward spiral of civility, responsibility and productivity in this country.

Yes, this is another social experiment that is marketed as solving a “supposed” problem which will lead to the next problem. Marriage is a totality of love. No, not every marriage will be perfect but this is not a solution and will lead to marriage meaning anything some people want it to mean. It will be sterile, and have continued negative effects on the heterosexual population. The Pill, IUD, spermicidal foam, the female barrier/condom, the morning after pill. Time to wake up people: others are making money off your believing a lie. No one needs any of that. I was born before any of that existed. So, the big lie being promoted is, gay or straight, your genitals control you and not the other way around.

Self-control of the passions, civility, responsibility and doing a good job regardless of where you work - that matters. Self-respect not celebrating scandal.

Ed

 

[Sy_Noe]

I am not sure many Catholics disagree with your assessment here. I think you are correct that these arguments will not convince the secular public. To me this is really the exact same situation we have with the right to life vs. the right to choose. Don’t be surprised if the pro and anti-gay marriage groups breakdown into these same divisions on this issue as that one; I mean the exact same people dividing pretty much into these two groups as they do with abortion: pro gay marriage / right to choose and anti gay marriage / right to life. (and they will stay that way) Same mentality really, on both sides.

The secular public? There are plenty of people of faith who support civil marriage for 2 same sex persons. And there are even Christian denominations whose clergy will officiate at a marriage between 2 people of the gender.

 

[Thorolfr]

Which begs the question why do you come on a Catholic list and tell Catholics not to accept the Church’s teaching…basing this on what might convince non-Catholics to accept them…I mean you really think we’re going to be convinced to abandon our faith to appeal to those who don’t even understand it? Really?

I’ve never told Catholics not to accept the Church’s teaching. It’s not my business to tell anyone, especially people of another Christian faith tradition, what to believe. All I said is that in a society like the one we now have in the US right now which already overwhelmingly accepts birth control and heterosexual marriages which are not about trying to have or raise children, I’m not sure that the Catholic Church is going to get much traction in trying to sway public opinion on same-sex marriage using arguments about how gay couples have sterile relationships or might have marriages that aren’t about raising children.

 

[religioussoup]

Which begs the question why do you come on a Catholic list and tell Catholics not to accept the Church’s teaching…basing this on what might convince non-Catholics to accept them…I mean you really think we’re going to be convinced to abandon our faith to appeal to those who don’t even understand it? Really?

No one is asking you to abandon your faith. We are asking you to understand that quoting the bible and enforcing your religion upon a group that isn’t 100% Catholic might not go your way. The bible, as sad as it sounds, does not mean anything to people who don’t believe in it. We are asking you all to understand this. Catholics and others against gay marriage are going to need better arguments that are not out of the bible or beliefs of themselves. You do not have to deny what you believe, simply, get an argument that people can understand by understanding.

 

[Sy_Noe]

No one is asking you to abandon your faith. We are asking you to understand that quoting the bible and enforcing your religion upon a group that isn’t 100% Catholic might not go your way. The bible, as sad as it sounds, does not mean anything to people who don’t believe in it. We are asking you all to understand this. Catholics and others against gay marriage are going to need better arguments that are not out of the bible or beliefs of themselves. You do not have to deny what you believe, simply, get an argument that people can understand by understanding.

I agree what you and Thorolfr have explained about this pretty much sums it up. In an earlier post a Catholic seemed to agree their arguments probably won’t convince the secular public. But it’s not just the secular public who are unconvinced. Beliefs outside the Catholic view are not necessarily secular. Again plenty people of faith, spirituality, or religious belief accept marriage equality for SS couples. Including those Christian denominations that will perform the ceremonies.

 

[FollowChrist34]

No one is asking you to abandon your faith. We are asking you to understand that quoting the bible and enforcing your religion upon a group that isn’t 100% Catholic might not go your way. The bible, as sad as it sounds, does not mean anything to people who don’t believe in it. We are asking you all to understand this. Catholics and others against gay marriage are going to need better arguments that are not out of the bible or beliefs of themselves. You do not have to deny what you believe, simply, get an argument that people can understand by understanding.

And your secular rationale for abortion and gay marriage mean nothing to a practicing Christian. We are asking you to understand this. If you are going to come on a Catholic forum and talk to us about these things, you need to be prepared to encounter people who believe in Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Catholic Church. They will reject your arguments as unsound and irrational. Sin is our word; we think you are substituting your will for God’s, that you have rejected truth (and will suffer because of it, and cause others to suffer). To the Christian, believing and saying this is witness of our faith; it is a duty. It is also charity directed to you and those that your actions harm; it is a defense of the common good.

The next logical step here to is to further isolate us from doing this; in other words, step up the aggression in the form of marginalizing the Christian view further and further out of social dialogue. This process will start after the SCOTUS decision this year in law, education, business, entertainment, etc. Take heart, you are actually much, much more zealous and committed to your cause than we are. Mark my words.

We’ll be fine reduced to a street corner and a sign:

Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein.
Jeremiah, 6. 16

Stoning prophets anyone… This is old, well-travelled territory. :tiphat:

 

[Sy_Noe]

And your secular rationale for abortion and gay marriage mean nothing to a practicing Christian. We are asking you to understand this. If you are going to come on a Catholic forum and talk to us about these things, you need to be prepared to encounter people who believe in Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Catholic Church. They will reject your arguments as unsound and irrational. Sin is our word; we think you are substituting your will for God’s, that you have rejected truth (and will suffer because of it, and cause others to suffer). To the Christian, believing and saying this is witness of our faith; it is a duty. It is also charity directed to you and those that your actions harm; it is a defense of the common good.

The next logical step here to is to further isolate us from doing this; in other words, step up the aggression in the form of marginalizing the Christian view further and further out of social dialogue. This process will start after the SCOTUS decision this year in law, education, business, entertainment, etc. Take heart, you are actually much, much more zealous and committed to your cause than we are. Mark my words.

We’ll be fine reduced to a street corner and a sign:

Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein.
Jeremiah, 6. 16

Stoning prophets anyone… This is old, well-travelled territory. :tiphat:

Herein seems to me to lie the problem in our discourse. From this post, apparently Catholics have a different definition than other Christians and people of faith of what it is to be a Christian or practicing Christian or to even believe in Jesus Christ. Unless you claim those Christians and denominations (even one or more mainline Protestant ones) that support and whose clergy will perform marriages between 2 people of the same sex, are not Christians or do not believe in Jesus Christ. But I’m not even sure your own church says that.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Unless you claim those Christians and denominations (even one or more mainline Protestant ones) that support and whose clergy will perform marriages between 2 people of the same sex, are not Christians or do not believe in Jesus Christ. But I’m not even sure your own church says that.

I have no problem at all with saying that this practice violates Scripture, Christian doctrine, Catholic teaching. The Pope would back me up on that, probably more charitably, but the basic response would be the same. It’s funny, to me this is just stating the obvious! It would be as if someone said to me - do you think that people who argue that the sun rises in the west are not correctly observing the facts of the natural world? (I am not being critical of your comments at all, just trying to point out the distance between our views…)

 

[Sy_Noe]

I have no problem at all with saying that this practice violates Scripture, Christian doctrine, Catholic teaching. The Pope would back me up on that, probably more charitably, but the basic response would be the same. It’s funny, to me this is just stating the obvious! It would be as if someone said to me - do you think that people who argue that the sun rises in the west are not correctly observing the facts of the natural world? (I am not being critical of your comments at all, just trying to point out the distance between our views…)

Yes clearly the Catholic Church continues to oppose marriage even civil ones between 2 people of the same gender. On that much we agree. But what is still just as clear is the Catholic church (nor its view of Scripture) is not the only Christian church or I should say ecclesial community in Catholic terms. At least I know Pope Benedict spoke in that way. Not sure about Pope Francis. I may have seen him use the term “churches” but I could have a faulty memory about that.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Herein seems to me to lie the problem in our discourse. From this post, apparently Catholics have a different definition than other Christians and people of faith of what it is to be a Christian or practicing Christian or to even believe in Jesus Christ. Unless you claim those Christians and denominations (even one or more mainline Protestant ones) that support and whose clergy will perform marriages between 2 people of the same sex, are not Christians or do not believe in Jesus Christ. But I’m not even sure your own church says that.

What’s true is not up for a vote.

The Church teaches, as did Jesus, that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The Church also teaches, as does the bible, that homosexual acts are immoral and against God’s will.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Yes clearly the Catholic Church continues to oppose marriage even civil ones between 2 people of the same gender. On that much we agree. But what is still just as clear is the Catholic church (nor its view of Scripture) is not the only Christian church or I should say ecclesial community in Catholic terms. I know Pope Benedict would use that term. Not sure about Pope Francis. Seems to me I’ve seen him use the term “churches” but I could be wrong about that.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Yes clearly the Catholic Church continues to oppose marriage even civil ones between 2 people of the same gender. On that much we agree. But what is still just as clear is the Catholic church (nor its view of Scripture) is not the only Christian church or I should say ecclesial community in Catholic terms.

Yet again, we stand in agreement!

Hence the term orthodoxy, to which I dedicate myself.

:bowdown2:

 

[religioussoup]

And your secular rationale for abortion and gay marriage mean nothing to a practicing Christian.

When did I ever mention my views about abortion???

Just because I think two men should be allowed to marry does not mean that you can start to make assumptions about what I believe.

As a matter of fact, I am not only a practicing Christian, but I am a practicing Catholic. Baptized, Confirmed, and mass EVERY Sunday. I am simply confused about my faith.