Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage - would you ban all marriage not recognised by the Church?

[Allegra]

What you’ve got is a horse. There is no reason to call it a dog. Now, I argue that my horse may be better than your horse. My horse is strong enough to ride me through the pearly gates if I keep it watered and well cared for. Your horse might only get you halfway there and you’re going to have to walk the rest of the way or not make it at all. Your brother doesn’t even have a horse. He’s going to have to walk the whole way with a dog dragging him down.

I’d just like to clarify that the animals analogized in this post are representing relationships and not people. I’m in no way trying to say that your spouse is an ineffective horse or your brother is a dog.

 

[Hokomai]

What you’ve got is a horse. There is no reason to call it a dog. Now, I argue that my horse may be better than your horse. My horse is strong enough to ride me through the pearly gates if I keep it watered and well cared for. Your horse might only get you halfway there and you’re going to have to walk the rest of the way or not make it at all. Your brother doesn’t even have a horse. He’s going to have to walk the whole way with a dog dragging him down.

No but the Catholic position is that my gay brother and I are each unmarried to our respective spouses. Yet you are happy for me and the state to call mine a marriage and him not. This continues to seem odd. No offense taken by the way re the dog and horse thing. I like both species a lot, and am often said to resemble my dog.

 

[Allegra]

No but the Catholic position is that my gay brother and I are each unmarried to our respective spouses. Yet you are happy for me and the state to call mine a marriage and him not. This continues to seem odd. No offense taken by the way re the dog and horse thing. I like both species a lot, and am often said to resemble my dog.

The Catholic position is that you are in an invalid marriage. (I’m assuming, I don’t know your situation. Depending on your circumstance it might be a valid marriage.) In other words, the Church does not approve of your marriage, but she does not contest the fact that you are married.

 

[livingwordunity]

A wedding ceremony done outside of the Church is not a marraige anyway. Marraige is a Sacrament, not a legal proceeding. That is why gay “marraige” does not now nor ever will exist.

Marriage of a man and woman who aren’t Catholic can be a natural marriage. The difference is that Jesus elevated the natural to the supernatural when he made marriage into a Sacrament of the Catholic Church.

 

[Hokomai]

The Catholic position is that you are in an invalid marriage. (I’m assuming, I don’t know your situation. Depending on your circumstance it might be a valid marriage.) In other words, the Church does not approve of your marriage, but she does not contest the fact that you are married.

Really? A marriage can be invalid and yet be a marriage? Where is this stated in Catholic teaching? Was Henry VIII married to all his wives? Is that what the Church said at the time? Was the English reformation a mistake?

 

[Hokomai]

Marriage of a man and woman who aren’t Catholic can be a natural marriage. The difference is that Jesus elevated the natural to the supernatural when he made marriage into a Sacrament of the Catholic Church.

Yes but the Church does not recognize some marriages (such as that of my wife and me because we are apostates and were married in a civil ceremony). But Catholics do not seek to make it illegal. But they do for gay marriage. One or two posters have been consistent and said they think I too should have no legal right to a marriage of this sort, but most have not.

 

[AnthonySorensen]

Yes but the Church does not recognize some marriages (such as that of my wife and me because we are apostates and were married in a civil ceremony). But Catholics do not seek to make it illegal. But they do for gay marriage. One or two posters have been consistent and said they think I too should have no legal right to a marriage of this sort, but most have not.

I’ve been following this thread for a few days and you seem intent on repeating yourself even though you’re question has been answered multiple times, by various people.

 

[AnthonySorensen]

Even if you’re right, mockery is not a good reason to make something illegal. I can mock Marriage, I can mock the Government, I can mock my Neighbor, I can mock the latest movie. If you want to make mockery illegal you’re going to have an interesting time breaking down what Free Speech means.

Right, but notice I said ‘one reason’ and not the primary or only reason.

 

[peduzzi89]

I would not. A divorced person re-marrying does not require a new definintion of marriage as “same-sex marriage” does. I assume, of course, you are referring to marriages of men to women.

Peace

Tim

Yes it does - the traditional definition of marriage includes only being married to one person and for the rest of your life. A divorced person remarrying breaks both of those rules.

 

[Orogeny]

Yes it does - the traditional definition of marriage includes only being married to one person and for the rest of your life. A divorced person remarrying breaks both of those rules.

Divorce has been around since at least the time of Moses (see the synoptic gospels). Men marrying other men or women marrying other women has never been allowed. Are you trying to now say that because divorced people remarry, two people of the same sex should be allowed to marry?

Peace

Tim

 

[peduzzi89]

Divorce has been around since at least the time of Moses (see the synoptic gospels). Men marrying other men or women marrying other women has never been allowed. Are you trying to now say that because divorced people remarry, two people of the same sex should be allowed to marry?

Peace

Tim

And has it ever been seen as permissible as the Catholic Church. And I’m not saying that that’s the reason they should be allowed, I’m saying that it proves the redefinition argument against it is a fallacy.

 

[Publisher]

And has it ever been seen as permissible as the Catholic Church. And I’m not saying that that’s the reason they should be allowed, I’m saying that it proves the redefinition argument against it is a fallacy.

The OP topic was what of those “marriages”…I’m assuming civil marriages…should be banned as well? As I said before…most likely the answer would be “No”…becasue it effects too many of us…our friends, our family and our acquaintences…just ban same sex marriage…even though a “similar” dynamic of so called “marriage” is involved with straight people in their second…third…fourth marriages…or their co-habitations…no one seems overly concerned about those…just the small percentage of a small minority of people seems to be the concern.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The OP topic was what of those “marriages”…I’m assuming civil marriages…should be banned as well? As I said before…most likely the answer would be “No”…becasue it effects too many of us…our friends, our family and our acquaintences…just ban same sex marriage…even though a “similar” dynamic of so called “marriage” is involved with straight people in their second…third…fourth marriages…or their co-habitations….no one seems overly concerned about those…just the small percentage of a small minority of people seems to be the concern.

Please stop spreading a false claim, in your effort to insert your agenda and propaganda in favor of same sex ‘marriage.’ There are many who disagree and are very concerned with the ease of dissolving marriages and no-fault divorce.

The Catholic Church has been against divorce from the beginning, and fought no-fault divorce legislation without success. Many are now seeing its negative impact on society. It also continues to teach about the ills of cohabitation.

As a note, Quakers are allowed to divorce, and they do divorce and remarry … some multiple times … unless you think members of the Society of Friends are somehow immune from what has become accepted, sadly, by society at large. In fact, correct me if I’m wrong, when a man and a woman marry in a Friends of Society meeting, they don’t even take an oath … no “till death us do part” promise.
,

 

[Publisher]

Please stop spreading a false claim, in your effort to insert your agenda and propaganda in favor of same sex ‘marriage.’ There are many who disagree and are very concerned with the ease of dissolving marriages of no-fault divorce.

The Catholic Church has been against divorce the beginning, and fought no-fault divorce legislation without success. Many are now seeing its negative impact on society. It also continues to teach about the ills of cohabitation.

As a note, Quakers are allowed to divorce, and they do divorce and remarry … some multiple times … unless you think members of the Society of Friends are somehow immune from what has become accepted by society at large. In fact, correct me if I’m wrong, when a man and a woman marry in a Friends of Society meeting, they don’t even take an oath … no “till death us do part” promise.
,

Friend…how is that a “false claim”. There are at most 10% of the population that is gay or lesbian…more conservative estimates are about 3-5% of the general population are gay or lesbian…out of this sub population…no more than 5% of gay people have wanted to get married…5% of the subgroup is not large at all.

You are correct…Friends suffer the same rate of divorce as Catholics and the general population do sadly.

While Friends perform no oaths, we do state to one another

“In the presence of God (OR In the fear of the Lord and in the presence of this assembly), Friends, I take this my friend NAME to be my husband/wife/partner, promising, through divine assistance (OR with God’s help), to be unto him/her a loving and faithful wife/husband/partner, so long as we both on earth shall live (OR until it shall please the Lord by death to separate us)”

I don’t think I ever initmated that Friends are of a higher moral caliber than are other Christians…we realize we are very fragile creatures…and when we fail…we turn to the Lord for His grace and mercy.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Friend…how is that a “false claim”. There are at most 10% of the population that is gay or lesbian…more conservative estimates are about 3-5% of the general population are gay or lesbian…out of this sub population…no more than 5% of gay people have wanted to get married…5% of the subgroup is not large at all.

You are correct…Friends suffer the same rate of divorce as Catholics and the general population do sadly.

While Friends perform no oaths, we do state to one another

“In the presence of God (OR In the fear of the Lord and in the presence of this assembly), Friends, I take this my friend NAME to be my husband/wife/partner, promising, through divine assistance (OR with God’s help), to be unto him/her a loving and faithful wife/husband/partner, so long as we both on earth shall live (OR until it shall please the Lord by death to separate us)”

I don’t think I ever initmated that Friends are of a higher moral caliber than are other Christians…we realize we are very fragile creatures…and when we fail…we turn to the Lord for His grace and mercy.

Did you see what I bolded in your quote? That is the false claim to which I referred.

I figured the divorce and remarriage rate is across the board, Society of Friends not excepted. The thing is you posit in this Catholic forum, making claims and criticising as you have in your post as though the phenomenon is only a Catholic one.
,

 

[Publisher]

Did you see what I bolded in your quote? That is the false claim to which I referred.
,

Well that is a relative evaluation of my statement…compared to the time and energy spent on same sex marriage…the cohabitation of straight people and the time and energy and legislation and debate pales in comparison when compared to the time, money energy spent on combatting same sex marriage…I would think that since a far far greater number of cohabbitating straight people exist here in the US…more time would be spent combating this assault on the “sanctity of marriage”.

 

[Publisher]

Did you see what I bolded in your quote? That is the false claim to which I referred.

I figured the divorce and remarriage rate is across the board, Society of Friends not excepted.** The thing is you posit in this Catholic forum, making claims and criticising as you have in your post as though the phenomenon is only a Catholic one.**,

Friend, no where did I indicate it was only a Catholic one…if you could provide a reference where i made that claim I would gladly retract it as false and misinformed and offer a heart felt apology…but I don’t believe you will find I ever made such a claim.

 

[thewanderer]

I have a question for Catholic opponents of same-sex marriage - would you given the political practicality of such a move, also ban other marriages deemed not to be marriages by the Church - such as the ‘marriages’ of divorced people, or the ‘marriages’ of baptized Catholics outside the Church? if so, I assume for the same reason you oppose gays being able to marry each other. If not, why not, and why are you not campaigning for a ban?

I haven’t read this whole thread, because its quite long, but I’ll give my answer to the OP.

I would not try to make such marriages illegal, the reason being that they still seem geared towards the states interest. If there are going to be any state laws with respect to who can and cannot be married legally, they need to be based off of an understanding of the purpose of having legal marriages in the first place as opposed to just private marriages. Why is marriage recognized by the state and why are people given special privileges for entering into this state? The only answer I can see is that it is beneficial for the state to encourage both procreation and the creation of a stable environment for the growth of children. This is necessary for the maintenance of the state by the , production, if you will, of more stable, healthy citizens who can maintain it. Because of this, any laws pertaining to who can and cannot marry legally must be aimed towards encouragin procreation, and creating a stable environment for the children once they are conceived. Same-sex couples can’t procreate, their relationship with each other is necessarily a sterile relationship, therefore I see no reason for the state to expand marriage privileges to such couples. Heterosexual couples who have been divorced can still form a fertile union and a stable environment for their children, so I see no reason for a legal ban on such people becoming legally married.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Friend, no where did I indicate it was only a Catholic one…if you could provide a reference where i made that claim I would gladly retract it as false and misinformed and offer a heart felt apology…but I don’t believe you will find I ever made such a claim.

Publisher,

Please read the statement I made carefully. Did you see the part “as though”? At any rate, I have read a good number of your posts in this forum across many threads on the subject. I will not dredge up right now from your record of posts where you specifically or by context or by inference that you were targeting the Catholic position on same sex ‘marriage’ when Catholics really should be paying attention to the divorce-remarry-practice of its members rather than devoting efforts to battle SS’M’ legislation. This is the criticism from you that I am talking about.

I am sure you have engaged in such a line of criticism before where I was also a participant in the thread. If I happen to come across the exchange or exchanges on review, or when I have time to devote to do the specific search on said postings, I have a mental note now to bring them up to your attention – most likely in a private message, unless it is appropriate to insert it in a current thread, in which case you can extend me your heartfelt apology. Fair enough?

As I said, the Society of Friends are doing the same thing, the divorce-remarry-practice, but it so happens that it changed its prior disapproval of same sex ‘marriage’ to now blessing such unions. Your posts defend and endorse SS’M’ every chance you get in this forum.

I now yield to the main discussion of the thread.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Well that is a relative evaluation of my statement…compared to the time and energy spent on same sex marriage…the cohabitation of straight people and the time and energy and legislation and debate pales in comparison when compared to the time, money energy spent on combatting same sex marriage…I would think that since a far far greater number of cohabbitating straight people exist here in the US…more time would be spent combating this assault on the “sanctity of marriage”.

As if it is practicable … spend more time to prevent people from cohabiting.

It might interest you to know, though, that the Church is not forgetting this cohabitation issue, and she has rolled up her sleeves in programs and ministries, except the effort does not get the press, nor your interest in finding out exactly what the Church and Catholic organizations are doing in this regard. Otherwise, you would have known already. So you field another undeserved criticism of how the Church should handle a different battle front. Your bias is certainly showing as well as your desire to change the topic from SS’M.’

In business terms, think prudent use of time and resources and return on investment.
,