Can a Catholic be for the de-regulation of marriage?

[GwenL]

Another social issue that we should remember is the impact on children of state legalization of gay “marriage.” When the state recognizes gay “marriage,” the state gives the gay couple the same rights as a married couple with regards to children. The state can, and will, require that adoption agencies not discriminate against gay couples. Do you think it morally acceptable to adopt children into a gay “marriage?”

Massachusetts did just this–told the Church that they cannot discriminate and must give children for adoption to gay couples. Catholic Charities of Boston was ordered by their bishop, who was reportedly ordered by the Vatican, to stop adopting children into gay “marriages,” and they have therefore stopped all adoption services, to be in compliance with Massachusetts law.

I don’t think that the Church’s teachings regarding gay “marriage” are difficult at all. Certainly, we should ensure that people can designate who they choose to be their heirs, executors of estates, and deathbed visitors. Those are all strictly legal, contractual matters and are really separate from the issue of two people of the same gender marrying.

IMHO, the people who argue most vehemently for gay “marriage” don’t care about the rights to be gained, but more about destroying the sacrament and institution of marriage.

 

[joandarc2008]

This would be perfectly acceptable to me on a national level.

I don’t think it’s morally acceptable for two people to have sex if they are not married, no matter their gender. I do believe two people are not truly married in the eyes of God if they are not of opposite genders.

But on a legal level, there are social issues, things I feel anyone should be able to do and have recognized. There was a news story recently about a homosexual couple, two women, one of whom was dying in the hospital. They had all their ducks in a row, they were prepared for such a situation, had all the necessary forms, but the hospital refused to allow the woman’s partner in to see her. The dying woman’s sister was allowed in immediately upon arriving, but the life partner was not. She got to see her partner for a few minutes at one point, but she was not allowed to be there when her partner died. The hospital’s excuse was that it was a trauma center, something about there not being enough room, but their actions don’t support that reasoning. It was discrimination, it was denying the dying woman’s wishes.

If someone, no matter their orientation or marital status, even an old woman who has never been married and has no children or family, wants to say “I want so-and-so to be allowed to see me in the hospital as if they were my spouse because I have none and no living or close family,” then that ought to happen no matter what. I know someone in this situation of having no family. There needs to be some way of irrefutably defining someone’s wishes and having them carried out, period. That’s what’s at the forefront of my mind. I don’t even care about taxes and possession and what have you. It’s issues relating to when one person considers another person like family.

I would agree that that is a depressing situation to say the least; however I doubt very highly that the woman had “all her ducks in a row.” As I found out when I was engaged to my now dh who had a condition which was once terminal and a set of parents that he was estranged from is that there is only one piece of paper that will be accepted and that is a health care surrogate. We had to get this until we were married so that I could advocate for him in surgery and in the ER. I was often treated like a second class citizen until that came out and once it did I became in charge because it gave me the authority to fire the doctor on the patients behalf. So basically the logic of this situation is faulty.

1- If she had all her ducks in a row and they ignored a health care surrogate they could have just as easily ignored a civil union if they wanted to be anti-gay

2- There is no need for “gay-marriage” as there are legal ways to get all of the rights afforded married couples that should be afforded these “couples.”

 

[Joe_5859]

Milkbar, First, I just want to say I agree with chrysostim83. There is a reason RCIA is a process. God understands that we need to wrestle with certain issues and that it takes time. So don’t fret too much. :hug3:

But on a legal level, there are social issues, things I feel anyone should be able to do and have recognized. There was a news story recently about a homosexual couple, two women, one of whom was dying in the hospital. They had all their ducks in a row, they were prepared for such a situation, had all the necessary forms, but the hospital refused to allow the woman’s partner in to see her. The dying woman’s sister was allowed in immediately upon arriving, but the life partner was not. She got to see her partner for a few minutes at one point, but she was not allowed to be there when her partner died. The hospital’s excuse was that it was a trauma center, something about there not being enough room, but their actions don’t support that reasoning. It was discrimination, it was denying the dying woman’s wishes.

If someone, no matter their orientation or marital status, even an old woman who has never been married and has no children or family, wants to say “I want so-and-so to be allowed to see me in the hospital as if they were my spouse because I have none and no living or close family,” then that ought to happen no matter what. I know someone in this situation of having no family. There needs to be some way of irrefutably defining someone’s wishes and having them carried out, period. That’s what’s at the forefront of my mind. I don’t even care about taxes and possession and what have you. It’s issues relating to when one person considers another person like family.

I understand what you’re getting at here. But we need to be careful about making rash decisions based on emotion. Certainly, I would agree that someone in a hospital (especially someome who is dying) should be able to be visited by whomever they wish. But it is a far leap to go from this one heartstring-pulling example to the complete deregulation of marriage, something that is a complete historical novelty the consequences of which we likely cannot begin to imagine. That’s not the solution. I concur with Joan’s skepticism that the woman truly “had her ducks in a row”. I can’t imagine how such a thing would have happened if that were the case. But even if she did, I think the solution is much simpler than the total deregulation of marriage.

 

[crazzeto]

I have never heard that; I did some Googling and it seems my parish takes the “Option C” route: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penitential_Rite

I’ve been upset about this all day. I’m stuck sinning, then, until God helps me change my mind. I am praying.

Don’t get too hung up on the specific number of times you sin per day, equating that to your worth as a human being or worth in the eyes of God. It is said the righteous sin 7 times per day. I don’t know that I could call my self righteous, certainly there’s no firm evidence to suggest this. Probably I sin more than 7 times a day then even though I try my best to bring that number to zero. But I do take heart, that even the righteous do sin, though obviously not as bad or frequently as someone like I do. They probably also actually get daily confession, where as in my diocese the best I can manage is weekly

 

[camerong]

I can’t even ever complete RCIA and convert if I can’t say I agree with the Church’s teaching on this, can I? I’m actually bawling like a baby as I’m typing this. I don’t know what to do.

I joined the Church on Easter, and at the time, I told my priest I thought homosexuals should be allowed a secular marriage and that hell does not exist (because everyone eventually goes to heaven). I was also far from sold on contraception and NFP. I essentially joined so I could be closer to my Catholic wife.

Since then, I have utterly joined with the Church on all of these and every other conceivable issue. I think there are some things about the faith that you cannot grasp until you are in it. I never could have imagined how clear these issues appeared to me, the stronger I became in my faith. Join the Church, you know in your heart that it is the right thing to do; sort out these issues, if they remain, later. As my priest put it, in more wisdom then I then realized, these are not deal-breakers. Now, when I think of something that I disagree with the Church over, I read what the Church has written about it, pray on it, and patiently let the Holy Spirit reveal to me the truth. Let the Holy Spirit work through you for a time and give you understanding that humans cannot.

 

[crazzeto]

The attitude ends when you harm another human life. Hence why abortion is wrong in society, and gay marriage is not necessarily wrong in a pluralistic society.

It is dangerous to push Catholic beliefs as law. Are we to outlaw pornography? infidelity? contraception? Those these things are wrong for Catholics, are we to make sure nobody does them, regardless of their beliefs?

You claim the danger of legislation of gay marriage is a slippery slope. The use of Catholic faith as law is equally slippery…

As rather eloquantly connected by Bishops in the S. Pacific somewhere (I can’t remember exactly where), homosexuality and homosexual marriage is linked to everything you just pointed out. How?

Homosexuality repersents purely selfish sexuality. It does not glorify God, it is not selfless, it does not produce anything. It is sex for the purpose of seeking personal pleasure in sexuality. To condon this, is to condone the very idea that sex, for selfish pleasure alone, whether gay or straight is OK. More over it’s to say that sex before marriage is OK. This leads to irrisponcible sexual behaviour, not in the context of homosexual activity, but also in the context of heterosexual activity. This leads to so called “unwanted pregancies”, which of course leads directly to abortion.

I hope first and foremost that this helps clear up the issues for you, and show how homosexuality is not mere “private sin”. Moreover I hope this helps shed some light on why we as Catholics say there is no such thing as private sin, all sin affects the whole community. Not only in this practical sense which I point out, but also in a mystical/supernatural sence through the communion of Saints (I think you say you’re in RCIA? Have they gotten to this yet?). I hope also, you’ll consider more heavily what the Church has to say, for the church will never lead you astray.

 

[rusty20]

As rather eloquantly connected by Bishops in the S. Pacific somewhere (I can’t remember exactly where), homosexuality and homosexual marriage is linked to everything you just pointed out. How?

Homosexuality repersents purely selfish sexuality. It does not glorify God, it is not selfless, it does not produce anything. It is sex for the purpose of seeking personal pleasure in sexuality. To condon this, is to condone the very idea that sex, for selfish pleasure alone, whether gay or straight is OK. More over it’s to say that sex before marriage is OK. This leads to irrisponcible sexual behaviour, not in the context of homosexual activity, but also in the context of heterosexual activity. This leads to so called “unwanted pregancies”, which of course leads directly to abortion.

I hope first and foremost that this helps clear up the issues for you, and show how homosexuality is not mere “private sin”. Moreover I hope this helps shed some light on why we as Catholics say there is no such thing as private sin, all sin affects the whole community. Not only in this practical sense which I point out, but also in a mystical/supernatural sence through the communion of Saints (I think you say you’re in RCIA? Have they gotten to this yet?). I hope also, you’ll consider more heavily what the Church has to say, for the church will never lead you astray.

Abortion, pragmatically, can be made illegal while still allowing the use of pornography, homosexual unions, and contraception. Sure, there will be problems in society. but that is from a purely Catholic perspective. If people disagree with the Catholic church, is it our responsibility as Catholics to force them, via the law, to abide by what we deem to be good for them?

 

[joandarc2008]

It is not our responsibility to make sure people abide by the Catholic faith if they are not Catholic but it IS our responsibility to make sure that the laws of the land are made in such a way as to support what pleases God to a majority of the Christian (and I daresay other monotheistic) religions. In the end all children of Abraham will be judged by the One God however we may know him. Those that don’t will have the other obvious option.

 

[crazzeto]

Abortion, pragmatically, can be made illegal while still allowing the use of pornography, homosexual unions, and contraception. Sure, there will be problems in society. but that is from a purely Catholic perspective. If people disagree with the Catholic church, is it our responsibility as Catholics to force them, via the law, to abide by what we deem to be good for them?

Ok, but there’s a practical problem here. First of all, homosexual marriage in and of it’s self is already a violation of God’s basic moral (natural in fact, you don’t even need God technically to argue this one) law. More over, it has the problematic effect I’ve described, it legitimises selfish sex, purly engaged for the personal satisfaction of each individual partner and for no other reason what so ever. This leads back to a culture which sees no sanctity, what so ever, with regard to the sex act when we should. None of us should be engaging in premarital sexual activity, even though I wager most of us have or are (I’m guilty, so if you think I’m calling you out then know I can’t do that with out calling myself out).

This is problematic, it is a big deal that I ever, in my life, thought that any argument against premaritial sex was just some old archaic superstition. It’s not, it’s a very real problem, it’s a problem that leads to abortion, its a problem which leads to STDs (which costs US money), it’s a problem which leads to widespread single parenthood (which costs society), and to wide spread wealfair parents (which, again, costs US money). More importantly, it’s aproblem which affects the ENTIRE communion of saints, because all of our sins affect the entire communion. Just like our penance, and obediance to god builds up the communion, our disobediance tears it down.

 

[joandarc2008]

I couldn’t have said it better. The problem becomes exponential. After all lets assume that everyone has the average 2.3 kids. Well, just for simplicity let’s make it two. Now one parent does not understand the sanctity of marriage due to premaritial sex, acceptance of society of homosexuality, etc. They teach two kids. These two kids grow up and teach their two kids. Now we have four kids who will grow up and teach eight kids. By the time we have gone five generations which assuming that is twenty years a generation that would be a century we will have 32 kids not understanding the sactity of marriage all from one that started. The math is staggering. Now if 1 of 36 people in our population is HIV positive it gets even scarrier out there as one of that 32 kid family is statistically probably going to end up HIV positive. How can anyone say this is good for society. There is a difference between the love and tolerance that the catechism teaches and the “free love, hippy” condone everything environment that some radicals would like us to have.