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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hokomai
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hokomai

Guest
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?
 
Hokomai said:
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?
Click to expand...
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
 
Orogeny said:
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
Click to expand...
But it requires an unCatholic definition. Is it this or newness to which you object.?
 
The Church already recognizes that some marriages need to be “Blessed by the Church” when a couple is converting into the faith as their original marriage was not completed in a Sacramental way. Therefore to address your concern, the Catholic Church is focused on the Sacrament of marriage, not the “practicality of politics” of marriage.

You state, in your profile, that you are a non-believer, but clearly you adhere to and are a member of the church of “politics and the state” as your highest authority. And therefore as a believing member in the church of the State, are you not absolutely scared senseless that “if” - the Church of Politics and the State - can force the Catholic Church to abandon its conscience and join the Church of the State in paying for abortion drugs/services, that that same - Church of the State - will not perhaps at some point in the future come after your conscience and request you to bend and bow to the - Church of the State - in a manner which you find abhorrent.
 
Orogeny said:
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
Click to expand...
Actually, there was a time when it would have been a new idea. Therefore “traditional marriage” is not so traditional, as marriage has changed numerous times throughout history.
 
Hokomai said:
But it requires an unCatholic definition. Is it this or newness to which you object.?
Click to expand...
Marriage has always been between a man and a women, although at times it included multiple women (don’t know if it ever included multiple men). It has NEVER been between two people of the same sex.

I object because it redefines something that has been around for millenia just to placate a small but vocal group.

Marriage has been around a lot longer than the Church has and, even in pagan societies, it didn’t include two people of the same sex so this isn’t only about the Church.

Peace

Tim
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Actually, there was a time when it would have been a new idea. Therefore “traditional marriage” is not so traditional, as marriage has changed numerous times throughout history.
Click to expand...
But it has always been between people of the opposite sex. That has not changed and that is “traditional marriage”.

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
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
Click to expand...
Yet the legal arguments appear to support same sex marriage, as the definition of marriage has changed legally with respect to gender over the past 70 years. Rather than changing the definition of marriage, the same sex marriage advocates are advocating the normal legal progression, which was set in motion by the women’s rights movement.

The principal objections to homosexual behavior is religious. So, I think your response is non-responsive to the OP’s question.
 
epan said:
Yet the legal arguments appear to support same sex marriage, as the definition of marriage has changed legally with respect to gender over the past 70 years. …
Click to expand...
70 years?
 
epan said:
Yet the legal arguments appear to support same sex marriage, as the definition of marriage has changed legally with respect to gender over the past 70 years. Rather than changing the definition of marriage, the same sex marriage advocates are advocating the normal legal progression, which was set in motion by the women’s rights movement.
Click to expand...
Really? When did the definition of marriage legally change with respect to gender? To the best of my knowledge, it has only happened in the past 5 years or so and only in specific areas.
The principal objections to homosexual behavior is religious. So, I think your response is non-responsive to the OP’s question.
Click to expand...
The OP didn’t seem to think so.

As much as I love the Church, I don’t have any desire to force others to follow her rules. My objection stands.

Peace

Tim
 
The government shouldn’t be in the business of marriage in the fist place. The US Constiuion requires equal protection under he law for all persons. If you want to uphold the US Constitution, then either gay marriage must be recognized, or get the government out of marriage altogether. But to permit straight marriage without allowing same sex marriage is,as anybody who understands Constitutional law knows, discriminatory and a violation of the fourteenth amendment.
 
I would, actually, change the rules substantially regarding no-fault divorce. Or else, to make it equal and fair, just make sure that anyone and everyone could dishonor a legal contract for any reason at all.

The trouble is that we are now, as a culture, defining marriage using the preferences of adults as the bar- not what is most stable for the rearing of children- who will struggle in an environment where their well-being is not put first.

Anyone who has had a family can observe that a man and a woman have different and complimentary gifts to offer their children. This does not change simply because there are so many single parents out there doing the best they can in a difficult situation.

(I didn’t think it was true either until I had my own kids and I see how they need their mother and father in different ways. I could not give my children the things that their father gives to them).
 
I suppose I ought to add as a corollary to my last post- that my opposition to same-sex marriage is not motivated by a desire to impose my religious laws on others- but rather on my research into the matter and my experiences with my own same-sex relationship and those of others I have known.
 
What business have we, as Catholics, regulating marriageamong non-Catholics?

The inescapable conclusion here is that marriage is a religious institution, and we have no business meddling in the religious institutions of others. And the government has no business getting involved in any religious institutions in the first place.
 
“traditional marriage” meant you could force your 12 year old to marry her 80 year old uncle, or you could sell her to the highest bidder. Up until Loving vs Virginia, marriage had to be the same race, and people then used the exact same argument you are using now - allowing different race people breaks tradition just to placate a small group of individuals (those who sought to marry a person of another race).

“tradition” is not legal reason enough to keep something the same. If that was the case; slavery, torture, spousal abuse, no rights for women, no civil rights, etc would still be the law of the land.

Are yolu guys planning to go back to the inquisition days, when you burned your opponents, or exiled them? After all, that was a very big Catholic tradition, now wasn’t it?

If you guys care so much about tradition, then why do you evangelize in countries that have been overwhelmingly one religion for centuries? Why should Muslims who have lived in an overwhelmingly Muslim society for centuries and centuries allow Christians to evangelize there - or for that matter, even allow Christians to practice their own religion freely. After all, Christians in this region are just a small vocal minority. Surely the TRADITION of Muslims should be respected, if TRADITION is all that matters

Oh wait, let me guess, traditions only should be enforced if they are YOUR traditions, right? Traditions of any other culture or people can be completely ignored, right?

Also, so what if homosexuals make up 10% of a population? You guys are arguing that a group is only deserving of rights if they make up a significant enough portion of the population. Really? So you’re telling me that if you knew of fellow catholics in a nation in which they only comprised 2% of the population, and in which they were not alowed by law to freely practice their religion in a region where freedom of religion has not been tolerated for as long as they have had known civilizations, and those Catholics started trying to fight for the right to practice their religion and asked for you for help, you would tell them no and discourage them? After all, they are but a tiny percentage of the population, and accord to you, tradition should not be altered just to “placate” a small group of individuals.
 
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.
 
If same sex marriage became legal, you can be sure that the Catholic Church would be sued from coast to coast by same sex couples who want the Church to marry them. Why would they be sued? Not because the couples are Catholic, but because they wish to see her ground under their heel. I am sure many same sex couples would not have an interest in this, but the ‘Roseanne Barr’ folks, with money and hate, would love to take on their ‘enemy’, not satisfied with gaining their ‘right’.

The claim “separation of Church and State” would not be broadcast by those who love to use that phrase today to kick the Church out of every building today.
 
I think it’s important to remember there are two rules of law here: corporeal law, and spiritual (Church?) law.

Whoever on this earth gets elected and what laws get passed have no bearing on the outcome of our souls.

So, in a nutshell, live as you will on this earth. Just be prepared to face the consequences of your actions come judgement day.

May God bless and peace be with you all.
 
BodiBatt said:
Also, so what if homosexuals make up 10% of a population? You guys are arguing that a group is only deserving of rights if they make up a significant enough portion of the population. Really?
Click to expand...
I honestly don’t know why I am replying to your intollerant rant, but, well, here I go.

What “right” do I, as a heterosexual male, have that a homosexual male does not regarding marriage?

Peace

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top