Catholic Church Says It Will Stop Charity Work If D.C. Passes Gay Marriage Law

[tomarin]

I understand that you don’t accept the analogy, but drawing parallels to shared experience is the best I can hope to do.

But if the analogy is invalid then your whole argument is invalid.

I don’t think there is any hope for “engaging at the level of principled objections” because what you call “principled objections” I see as bigotry.

Then I don’t think you’re making a good faith effort to understand our objections. Feeling very strongly that gay people are fellow human beings and worthy of compassion does not exclude being opposed to gay marriage on other grounds. It’s possible for example to feel that the benefits of gay marriage (total and absolute equality) do not justify its possible deleterious effects on traditional marriage and the family, which is after all the most fundamental unit of human society.

I think you are a reasonable person, but I see a contradiction in claiming that you have nothing against gay people while also believing that what they do is “perverse,” “unnatural,” and I assume “immoral” and “disordered” as the Church also teaches.

I said that claiming same-sex marriage is equivalent to normal marriage is perverse. I wasn’t referring to particular sex acts. (For the record I do think these are disordered but I don’t think we need to “go there” in order to prove the folly of recognizing same-sex unions as equivalent to marriage.) How can a man be a wife to another man? How can a man be a wife at all? Similarly, a man is constitutionally incapable of being a mother. Claiming that he can is what I am calling perverse. You are altering what I’m saying in order to make your point.

 

[fix]

Should Chistian Scientists be free to refuse their children medical treatment?

What does refusing authentic medical help have to do with the state passing an unjust law ?

You just keep saying that the law is unjust without explaining why it is unjust.

Is it not self evident? So-called homosexual unions violate the objective moral order. They are wrong on several levels. For the state to codify such an unjust relationship and then claim the Church has no exemption is not just.

So it is just discrimination?

We all justly discriminate all the time. If we did not we would be sociopathic.

Actually, there is. The Court has ruled that there is a right to privacy and that lawmakers cannot make any law on the grounds that a given behavior is immoral. See “sodomy laws.”

No, that is not a right. That is simply an abuse of civil authority.

Now it seems clear that you just don’t know what the word “discrimination” means.

Sure I do. I just do not misapply it as seem to do.

And “moral relativist” for you just seems to be “anyone who disagrees with me.”

No, if you can show me where my position is contrary to the objective moral order I will change my position. The problem we have here is that you reject the objective moral order.

 

[TMC]

I suspect this is being crazily overblown by the media, the city and maybe even by the Archdiocese. If the city contracts required something be done that the Church cannot do, the Church will drop those contracts. As a practical matter, that will result in the Church dropping only a few services, and the city will have to find someone else to perform those particular services. That does not require stopping the Church’s general charitable activities.

Gay marriage has been legalized in five states and in several foreign countries. Each time the same issues come up. The biggest (an usually only) problem it has created for Catholic Charities is the provision of adoption services for gay couples. The Church will not do that, so usually has to stop providing adoption services. The Church has no rules against providing health care, food, shelter etc. to gay people (or anyone else, for that matter), married or not. Those charitable works will continue, just as they have in the other gay marriage jurisdictions.

 

[Leela]

But if the analogy is invalid then your whole argument is invalid.

Then I don’t think you’re making a good faith effort to understand our objections. Feeling very strongly that gay people are fellow human beings and worthy of compassion does not exclude being opposed to gay marriage on other grounds. It’s possible for example to feel that the benefits of gay marriage (total and absolute equality) do not justify its possible deleterious effects on traditional marriage and the family, which is after all the most fundamental unit of human society.

I know that you will not accept any alalogy I make, but I’m not sure how else to argue here. I do understand the Catholic objections to homosexuality,and to me they all pretty much sound like “because God says so.” I don’t know what else I can say besides “no he doesn’t.”

You see yourself as defending “traditional marriage, the family and natural law – ideas which are much older than the idea of being “gay” or “gay rights.”” You are correct that the idea of human rights is a relatively new one, but it would be a logical fallacy to assume that older ideas are always better than new ones.

You have this notion of “traditional marriage” as fixed for all eternity, but your idea of traditional marriage is not as old as you seem to think.

occams-razor.info/2008/12/how_traditional_is_traditional_marriage_anyhow.html

“Polygamy was acceptable in Abraham’s time. According to the Bible, Abraham had multiple wives, as did many of the Jewish elders and kings whose lives are chronicled in the Old Testament. Apparently, the more wives you had the more status you had in the community. Polygamy also served the useful evolutionary purpose of spreading the seed at a time when humans were an endangered species. Mother Nature might have thought it necessary. Abraham reputedly lived to some impossibly old age. Yet, Yahweh apparently saw no abomination with Abraham’s polygamy. While polygamy is unlawful in today’s America, it remains legal in much of the Muslim world and is explicitly permitted in the Quran.”

So “traditional marriage” is not as traditional as you claim. In fact, it seems rather to hard to find a “traditional marriage” in the Bible. What couple in the Bible best represents this sort of marriage to you?

You have the idea that “traditional marriage” is part of natural law, but biologists have discovered all sorts of parings among animals that suggest that monogamy is hardly the norm. Among humans, social scientist Margaret Mead documented decades ago that the one man-one woman marriage we define as “traditional marriage” is just one natural variation among humans. Across the world, Mead documented numerous cultures where all sorts of arrangements are sanctioned: “traditional” marriage, polygamy, polyandry, polyamory as well as the tribal equivalents of gay marriage. So I don’t buy any “unnatural” or “perverse” claims about gay marriage and I see no reason to deny marriage rights on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Best,
Leela

 

[edwest2]

I understand that you don’t accept the analogy, but drawing parallels to shared experience is the best I can hope to do. I don’t think there is any hope for “engaging at the level of principled objections” because what you call “principled objections” I see as bigotry. They are the same sorts of “principled objections” that the Southern slave owners used in support of slavery and the sort used to oppose interracial marriage. People opposing such also thought that their objections were principled and had the support of their religions.

No one ever thinks that they are guilty of bigotry. That is a part of the phenomenon.

I think you are a reasonable person, but I see a contradiction in claiming that you have nothing against gay people while also believing that what they do is “perverse,” “unnatural,” and I assume “immoral” and “disordered” as the Church also teaches.

Please do not try to bury this discussion under some flalse phenomenology. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue:

hlrecord.org/2.4462/guest-opinion-gay-marriage-is-not-a-civil-rights-issue-1.579824

Peace,
Ed

 

[Leela]

What does refusing authentic medical help have to do with the state passing an unjust law ?

It means that just because a law opposes a religious belief does not make it an unjust law. I thought maybe that was what you meant when you keep saying “unjust.” Parents don’t get a religious exemption when it comes to taking their kids to a doctor. I hope we agree.

Is it not self evident? So-called homosexual unions violate the objective moral order. They are wrong on several levels. For the state to codify such an unjust relationship and then claim the Church has no exemption is not just.

No, it is very evidently not self-evident since we and so many others disagree.

No, if you can show me where my position is contrary to the objective moral order I will change my position. The problem we have here is that you reject the objective moral order.

I do not reject “the objective moral order.” But I don’t see how such an idea is of any use to this discussion. If we had access to the Moral Law then we could settle the issue fairly easily by comparing the proposition “gay marriage is immoral” with the Moral Law, but neither of us believes that the other has any special knowledge of what is moral that the we do not have. Your arguments about what does and does not correspond with the objective moral order then ammount to no more than “because I said so.”

 

[edwest2]

You seem to be confusing sexual relations with love. Homosexuality is not about chicks making out with other chicks. It is about human beings falling in love with other human beings who happen to be of the same sex.

I have a hard to imaging that if Jesus were around he would be saying, “yes, it is important that we deny health care to spouses of same-sex employees because it is just wrong for them to be in love, and offering health insurance to such people would simply send the wrong message.”

Please don’t pour water on our collective leg and tell us it’s raining. How many links to how many gay web sites should I provide that refer to the repeal of all sodomy laws and the decriminalization of other sex acts starting in the early 1970s?

Right now, around the world, all sorts of mix and match people are performing whatever acts they want in the privacy of their homes. Am I right? Therefore, please don’t post here in an attempt to redefine a foundational, and to Christians and other religious people, a sacred institution.

Peace,
Ed

 

[tomarin]

I know that you will not accept any alalogy I make, but I’m not sure how else to argue here. I do understand the Catholic objections to homosexuality,and to me they all pretty much sound like “because God says so.” I don’t know what else I can say besides “no he doesn’t.”

Even if we are tolerant of homosexuality, it doesn’t follow that we should automatically endorse gay marriage. To me it seems that’s a whole other question. Even the ancient greeks, who considered love between men to be nobler somehow than that of love between men and women, didn’t seek to normalize gay marriage. Probably they realized there was something deeply fraudulent behind the very idea.

I explicitly try to avoid making the very arguments you ascribe to me (the argument from authority, i.e. the Church says so, or tradition says so), because they are fallacies.

You see yourself as defending “traditional marriage, the family and natural law – ideas which are much older than the idea of being “gay” or “gay rights.”” You are correct that the idea of human rights is a relatively new one, but it would be a logical fallacy to assume that older ideas are always better than new ones.

You have this notion of “traditional marriage” as fixed for all eternity, but your idea of traditional marriage is not as old as you seem to think.

It’s certainly been traditional for as long as the West has been Christian.

So “traditional marriage” is not as traditional as you claim. In fact, it seems rather to hard to find a “traditional marriage” in the Bible. What couple in the Bible best represents this sort of marriage to you?

Adam and Eve?

You have the idea that “traditional marriage” is part of natural law, but biologists have discovered all sorts of parings among animals that suggest that monogamy is hardly the norm. Among humans, social scientist Margaret Mead documented decades ago that the one man-one woman marriage we define as “traditional marriage” is just one natural variation among humans. Across the world, Mead documented numerous cultures where all sorts of arrangements are sanctioned: “traditional” marriage, polygamy, polyandry, polyamory as well as the tribal equivalents of gay marriage. So I don’t buy any “unnatural” or “perverse” claims about gay marriage and I see no reason to deny marriage rights on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Natural law is a philosophical term that doesn’t refer to actual biology. It refers to moral rationality present in the universe (which I’m sure you deny, but that’s a topic for another thread). Also I’m not denying that other humans in other times and places – even as you say the Jewish patriarchs of the Old Testament – have had marital arrangements that differ from what we are calling “traditional.” That doesn’t convince me that “anything goes” or “anything should go” in the institution of marriage. I think these institutions develop organically within the particular society that has nurtured them, over milennia, and that each society has its own internal logic which should be respected.

 

[fix]

It means that just because a law opposes a religious belief does not make it an unjust law. I thought maybe that was what you meant when you keep saying “unjust.” Parents don’t get a religious exemption when it comes to taking their kids to a doctor. I hope we agree.

The moral truth of the matter discussed in this thread is not only a religious tenet, but it is a natural moral truth that is known to all.

No, it is very evidently not self-evident since we and so many others disagree.

Many self evident things are denied by folks all the time. That just means many are in denial for various reasons or confused.

I do not reject “the objective moral order.” But I don’t see how such an idea is of any use to this discussion. If we had access to the Moral Law then we could settle the issue fairly easily by comparing the proposition “gay marriage is immoral” with the Moral Law, but neither of us believes that the other has any special knowledge of what is moral that the we do not have. Your arguments about what does and does not correspond with the objective moral order then ammount to no more than “because I said so.”

No, it means that the objective truth is rejected by you for some reason.

 

[fix]

Natural law is a philosophical term that doesn’t refer to actual biology. It refers to moral rationality present in the universe (which I’m sure you deny, but hey …). Also I’m not denying that other humans in other times and places – even as you say the Jewish patriarchs of the Old Testament – have had marital arrangements that differ from what we are calling “traditional.” That doesn’t convince me that “anything goes” or “anything should go” in the institution of marriage. I think these institutions develop organically within the particular society that has nurtured them, over milennia, and that each society has its own internal logic which should be respected.

I would add that polygamy is less of a violation of the natural law than same sex unions are. The universal norm on one man and one woman goes back to the very foundation of civilization.

 

[Leela]

Please do not try to bury this discussion under some flalse phenomenology. Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue:

hlrecord.org/2.4462/guest-opinion-gay-marriage-is-not-a-civil-rights-issue-1.579824

Peace,
Ed

I never said it was. But it is a human rights issue since gays are human, and any struggle to extent human rights to those previously oppressed has some parallel in the struggle of others such as the struggle for woman’s rights and the Civil Rights movement in the US.

I think you are just as wrong as those fearing that giving women voting rights would destroy society or that a nation that did not have a an enforced religion could not stand. I draw the parallels because I hope that they raise concerns about being on the wrong side of history.

 

[Leela]

The moral truth of the matter discussed in this thread is not only a religious tenet, but it is a natural moral truth that is known to all.

Many self evident things are denied by folks all the time. That just means many are in denial for various reasons or confused.

No, it means that the objective truth is rejected by you for some reason.

Do you plan to ever make an argument supporting your belief in the objective truth of the immorality of homosexuality?

 

[edwest2]

I never said it was. But it is a human rights issue since gays are human, and any struggle to extent human rights to those previously oppressed has some parallel in the struggle of others such as the struggle for woman’s rights and the Civil Rights movement in the US.

I think you are just as wrong as those fearing that giving women voting rights would destroy society or that a nation that did not have a an enforced religion could not stand. I draw the parallels because I hope that they raise concerns about being on the wrong side of history.

“wrong side of history”? History is written by men. I want to be on the right side of human biology where men and women are designed for each other, physically, mentally and spiritually. Also, I want to be on the side that promotes the unitive and procreative nature of stable family life. Bringing a life into this world is not subject to experiment or an “anything goes approach.” The rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit should not be violated by the State as it currently is in Massachusetts.

I keep hearing that all gay people want is to be together and visit each other in the hospital. I worked in a hospital for almost ten years. No one at the nurse’s station asked if you were gay if you wanted to visit someone. I was not required to ask a patient if they were gay before taking them from the emergency room to another department. I can legally leave my estate to my pet if I want.

Little kids who are not mentally or emotionally mature should not be forced by the State to read gay storybooks in Massachusetts right now. Parents are being told “It’s not a parental notification issue.” It most certainly is.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Leela]

Adam and Eve?

Perhaps, but Eve was created from the rib of Adam rrather than being married in the traditional way (and then their sons and daughters married one another). Any others?

Natural law is a philosophical term that doesn’t refer to actual biology. It refers to moral rationality present in the universe (which I’m sure you deny, but that’s a topic for another thread).

I can’t see how “natura law” can mean anything other than claiming to know what God thinks.

Also I’m not denying that other humans in other times and places – even as you say the Jewish patriarchs of the Old Testament – have had marital arrangements that differ from what we are calling “traditional.” That doesn’t convince me that “anything goes” or “anything should go” in the institution of marriage. I think these institutions develop organically within the particular society that has nurtured them, over milennia, and that each society has its own internal logic which should be respected.

I’m not saying “anything goes” either. I just don’t think the claim that one particular arrangement is better because it is “traditional” gets you anywhere though there are certainly some arrangements that are better than others.

 

[Leela]

“wrong side of history”? History is written by men. I want to be on the right side of human biology where men and women are designed for each other, physically, mentally and spiritually. Also, I want to be on the side that promotes the unitive and procreative nature of stable family life.

By “wrong side of history” I’m referring to, for example, John Paul II’s apologies for:

mistreatment of Jews, women, Muslims slaughtered by the Crusaders, Catholics’ involvement with the African slave trade, The Church Hierarchy’s role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic), the injustices committed against women, the violation of women’s rights and for the historical denigration of women (10 July 1995, in a letter to “every woman”).
The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (see the article Religion in Nazi Germany) (16 March 1998) among others.

I have hope that one day a future Pope will appologize for the Church’s treatment of homosexuals because it is as wrong here as it was about the above.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Please remain on topic and your posts charitable.
Thank you.

 

[fix]

Do you plan to ever make an argument supporting your belief in the objective truth of the immorality of homosexuality?

Let us stay on topic. My brief answer is that truth of the matter has been shown several times and you can search the threads.

 

[whatevergirl]

*What does helping the homeless, and other people who desperately need help in DC, have to do with same sex marriage? So the homeless, and others who benefit from the Archdiocese of DC’s charity works, will suffer because homosexuals will be permitted to legally marry? I love my faith, but I don’t think this is how we make points, by cutting off charity to those in need, who have nothing to do with the agenda we oppose. Just my two cents. *

 

[Havard]

*What does helping the homeless, and other people who desperately need help in DC, have to do with same sex marriage? So the homeless, and others who benefit from the Archdiocese of DC’s charity works, will suffer because homosexuals will be permitted to legally marry? I love my faith, but I don’t think this is how we make points, by cutting off charity to those in need, who have nothing to do with the agenda we oppose. Just my two cents. *

Whatevergirl, the article is misleading, read the Bishop’s letter. I’ll post it again for ya:

---

A Letter from Bishop Knestout: “Setting the Record Straight: Same-Sex Marriage Bill & Social Services”

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Recent news reports have mistakenly claimed that the Archdiocese of Washington and its social services arm, Catholic Charities, are threatening to cease providing social services in the District of Columbia if the proposed bill to legalize same sex marriage is passed.

Catholic Charities is not threatening to end its services if a same sex marriage bill passes. Catholic Charities is vowing to continue its services even if a same sex marriage bill passes. However, the bill, as it now reads, will diminish the resources we have to do so. Why is that so? Because without a meaningful religious exemption in the bill, Catholic Charities and other similar religious providers will become ineligible for contracts, grants and licenses to continue those services.

What we have said to the Council is this: While we are opposed to redefining marriage in the District of Columbia, if the Council moves forward to do so, we respectfully request that religious individuals and organizations be afforded protection from restrictions on their deeply held religious beliefs and that the Council preserve the ability of Catholic Charities and other providers to continue to serve the growing and unmet needs of the poor and most vulnerable residents of the District of Columbia.

Attached is a fact sheet (click here to read fact sheet) with further information that we hope may assist you in understanding the issues. Please share this with your colleagues, friends, and others. Additional information, including testimony, press releases and other material, is available at www.marriagemattersdc.org.

Sincerely in Christ,

Most Reverend Barry C. Knestout
Auxiliary Bishop of Washington
Vicar General and Moderator of the Curia

 

[whatevergirl]

*Thank you…why this thread worded that way, then? lol

Second, I don’t understand the ‘‘religious exemption?’’ Why is the Catholic Church going to be denied grants? I guess I don’t understand. *