catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15813
We, as Catholics, are obligated to oppose gay “marriage” because it goes against the natural law. I strongly recommend that you read the following:
Because we’re “Roman” Catholics, not “American” Catholics.
good answer. thats a distinction that grows more important everyday as the 2 drift farther and farther apart from being compatible.
I read that same article years ago, and it impresses me as little now as it did then. Look, you’ll get no argument from me that homosexual sex is immoral, unnatural, and gravely disordered. I will never condone it. But we (Americans) have all agreed to live in a society where the laws are authored by men, not God. The laws our country has crafted and accepted put individual freedom on a pedastal, if not an altar, including the freedom to hurt oneself. Do I think that society would be better off it it disallowed gay marriage? Absolutely. But I think it’s extremely hypocritical to ban it for the stated reasons, when there are so many other activities that we allow which are also harmful to the person(s) doing them.
Yes, but we are not free to impose Catholicism on other Americans. If we disallow gay marriage on the grounds that it is harmful to the self and harmful to society, are we not also logically compelled to try to ban promiscuity? What else do we need to ban in order to remain logically consistent? Supposing we did ban these things, would our country still be the land of the free? Don’t get me wrong, I think it would objectively be better for all involved if we followed Catholic laws, but laws require enforcement, and we do not have the right to force other people to observe our beliefs.
so because the laws of this country allow some bad things and afford people to hurt themselves in some ways we should just give up and let them hurt themselves however they want?
Unfortunately every state with an “equal protection” clause in its constitution and a left-leaning state Supreme Court will crumble on this. Persecution of the Church is inevitable, as the next logical step in states that legalize it will be for private discrimination lawsuits to proceed against the various diocese. It’s inconceivable that advocate groups won’t force the judiciary to test the binding status of these laws on religious institutions. That’s when the rubber will really hit the road and priests/bishops take the crown of suffering.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15813
I totally agree with the good bishop. Now is not the time to be apathetic about gay “marriage”. Now is the time to get excited and try our best to stop gay “marriage” from being legalized and also to try and get it banned where it is now currently legal. It is time for Catholics and non-Catholic Christians everywhere to stand up and fight for what is right!
Promiscuity doesn’t have special state sanctioned laws that promote it, reward it, and marginalize those who disagree with it.
So, may I infer that you are against outlawing abortion, too?
Binary, There is so much I disagree with in this post. To say we are free is an illusion. We struggle everyday for liberty and in today’s society we are losing. Am I free to marry a tree or my dog or my sister and brother at the same time? This argument is too broad. The question is “What is marriage”. For Catholics it’s a sacrament and we should be willing to fight for what we belive in. If we don’t others will fight to define it as they believe.
Let me start over. I would love to be convinced that I would be justified in opposing gay marriage. But how can I do that without imposing my beliefs on other people? In most cases, I’d say that natural law is a great guide for creating secular laws. When it comes to sex, though, I don’t know how I could convince someone that it ought to be equally unitive and procreative. Make no mistake, natural law is the cornerstone of the anti-gay marriage argument. If they reject that premise, and I can’t convince them of it, how can I ethically vote to make that premise binding on them?
now im not 100% i follow your logic so please correct me if i’m wrong, but my honest understanding of it is:
That’s just silly. Your criterion for determining if a vote is moral is whether someone else disagrees with you? If so, I take it you just don’t vote.
… apparently there is a mechanism in place that any woman “ordained” a priest is automatically excommunicated. Why doesn’t the church set up the same thing for anyone who votes for abortion or same-sex marriage? 
My criterion for determining whether or not I can vote for something is my ability to make a case for it to a rational person. Otherwise, let’s all just vote what we feel is best, and depending on which religion is the majority in the country, we can legalize polygamy, or enact sharia law.
Well we probably will end up legalizing polygamy, since if we legalize gay marriage, there is no good reason for preferring any one definition of marriage over another. And when marriage means nothing, it can mean anything.