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.
stanczyk said:
That is exactly what I mean. Prolife issues make this issue look like a joke by comparison. Homosexual “marriage” is a sin, no doubt, but so is cohabiting unmarked straight couples. I don’t see people up in arms about that.

Catholics need to learn how to pick their battles. US law clearly supports gay marriage equality. Why on earth are we making a stand over this insignificant issue when things like abortion ( on which there can be no compromise) require our full attention. It just
makes Catholics look bigoted, because it really is based on nothing more than bigotry.
Click to expand...
“U.S. law clearly supports gay marriage equality.”? I thought that this was the matter in dispute. When was this new fact discovered? Let’s at least wait until the Supreme Court manages to find approval for gay marriage in some previously unknown penumbra of the constitution, just as they managed to find a previously unknown right to abortion.
 
I am absolutely against same sex marriage.

I am not against the legalization of it. I think that the government’s role should not be to enforce morality in cases where nobody else is directly harmed, especially in the case of two consenting adults. I do not want them to ban premarital sex, masturbation, adultery, or any other like sin where nobody else is placed in danger or harmed.
 
Bill_Martin said:
I am absolutely against same sex marriage.

I am not against the legalization of it. I think that the government’s role should not be to enforce morality in cases where nobody else is directly harmed, especially in the case of two consenting adults. I do not want them to ban premarital sex, masturbation, adultery, or any other like sin where nobody else is placed in danger or harmed.
Click to expand...
Not to mention to try to do so would be nigh on to impossible since most of our society is or has engaged in the above issues…same sex marriage effects only a small percentage of a small minority of people…so it really effects very few people in any real world manner…“Let’s ban something that doesn’t effect us.” type mentality…imagine the outcry if divorce or any other “adult” activity was actively fought against by religous groups.🙂
 
Bill_Martin said:
I am absolutely against same sex marriage.

I am not against the legalization of it. I think that the government’s role should not be to enforce morality in cases where nobody else is directly harmed, especially in the case of two consenting adults. I do not want them to ban premarital sex, masturbation, adultery, or any other like sin where nobody else is placed in danger or harmed.
Click to expand...
Why are you absolutely against same sex marriage, if you believe that nobody else is harmed?

I am against same sex marriage because I believe that it does do harm–to men, to women, to children, to family structure, to society as a whole, to our continued viability as a civilization.

Marriage has been the basis for family since the dawn of history, and family is the basis of society and civilization. When marriage collapses, so do families and social structures and societies. But hey, if it makes people feel good, just do it. I hope not to be alive long enough to live through the disaster.
 
JimG said:
I am against same sex marriage because I believe that it does do harm–to men, to women, to children, to family structure, to society as a whole, to our continued viability as a civilization.

Marriage has been the basis for family since the dawn of history, and family is the basis of society and civilization. When marriage collapses, so do families and social structures and societies. But hey, if it makes people feel good, just do it. I hope not to be alive long enough to live through the disaster.
Click to expand...
Huh? This implies that same-sex marriage will stop heterosexuals from marrying, which won’t happen. It’s all nonsense. This is a perfect example of the parade of the imaginary horribles.
 
JimG said:
Why are you absolutely against same sex marriage, if you believe that nobody else is harmed?

I am against same sex marriage because I believe that it does do harm–to men, to women, to children, to family structure, to society as a whole, to our continued viability as a civilization.

Marriage has been the basis for family since the dawn of history, and family is the basis of society and civilization. When marriage collapses, so do families and social structures and societies. But hey, if it makes people feel good, just do it. I hope not to be alive long enough to live through the disaster.
Click to expand...
Of course sin is harmful, but for the purposes of legislating it, I only want to see sin that directly, immediately, and quantifiably harms people, such as murder, rape, theft, etc., to be prohibited. Otherwise we have too vague of a definition with too many differing opinions—and too easy a way of quelling whatever the government decides it does not like, is not useful to its purposes, or offends whatever group they are pandering to for votes.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Huh? This implies that same-sex marriage will stop heterosexuals from marrying, which won’t happen. It’s all nonsense. This is a perfect example of the parade of the imaginary horribles.
Click to expand...
Why will heterosexuals wish to marry when the very term has been redefined out of existence? If homosexuals wish to pretend to a supposed marital union that cannot exist, let them find their own word.
 
JimG said:
“U.S. law clearly supports gay marriage equality.”? I thought that this was the matter in dispute. When was this new fact discovered? Let’s at least wait until the Supreme Court manages to find approval for gay marriage in some previously unknown penumbra of the constitution, just as they managed to find a previously unknown right to abortion.
Click to expand...
You have got to get with the times.
 
JimG said:
Why will heterosexuals wish to marry when the very term has been redefined out of existence? If homosexuals wish to pretend to a supposed marital union that cannot exist, let them find their own word.
Click to expand...
Well, now you’re assuming that most heterosexuals think like you, which isn’t true. There are plenty that don’t care about same-sex marriage. I’m heterosexual, and I’d still enter into a marriage, regardless of who else can. 🤷
 
I cannot think of a more frivolous reason to deny equal protection under the law than an undue attachment to the traditional meaning of the word “marriage.”

How childish.
 
I honestly think we’re at a cross roads at this point as a country. We really only have two choices: we either privatize marriage or we accept homosexual “marriage” as the law of the land. I really don’t think that state marriage licenses only for heterosexual couples is going to continue to be in the next couple of years.

Once certain cases reach the Supreme Court, it’s game over for the states that only have heterosexual marriage licenses.
 
stanczyk said:
You have got to get with the times.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But then I belong to an organization whose “times” include the past 2000 years. In any case, one doesn’t just assume that the law clearly supports homosexual marriage, when the matter has barely been litigated.

Mostly where it has been accepted, it has been imposed by judicial fiat. When put to a vote it loses. And one should not presume that the last 40 years of social change represent the norm. The current situation is quite far from the norm.
 
Regular_Atheist said:
Well, now you’re assuming that most heterosexuals think like you, which isn’t true. There are plenty that don’t care about same-sex marriage. I’m heterosexual, and I’d still enter into a marriage, regardless of who else can. 🤷
Click to expand...
There are quite a few of us heterosexuals who do oppose gay marriage, but don’t think that the government should have any role in marriage whatsoever, besides recognizing and enforcing contracts made between parties. I would like to see the government stop with the marriage license nonsense for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. Yes, this will allow gays to “marry” or whatever they feel like calling it, but it would strip bureaucrats of their power to recognize or refuse a sacrament, or in some cases, a freely chosen contract between two people.

It would also prevent them from someday enacting the reverse of the current situation—refusal to recognize traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
 
Bill_Martin said:
I am absolutely against same sex marriage.

I am not against the legalization of it. I think that the government’s role should not be to enforce morality in cases where nobody else is directly harmed, especially in the case of two consenting adults. I do not want them to ban premarital sex, masturbation, adultery, or any other like sin where nobody else is placed in danger or harmed.
Click to expand...
Hi Bill:

I think the distinction is that keeping marriage as it has traditionally been understood is not legislating moral conduct, as would be laws against sodomy, adultery, fornication, masturbation, etc.

Traditional marriage does not impact the rights of homosexual people to engage in same-sex conduct of their choosing - monogamous, polyamory, or whatever they mutually decide to do. Proponents of the traditional definition simply want to maintain the reality that marriage is a unique relationship that is oriented towards procreation, rather than redefine it to be nothing but the cultural “approval” of a relationship between two people.

I think that if modern culture wants to formally “approve” same sex relationships, there are better ways to do it, that will not dismantle the long-standing institution of marriage. I think it is a disservice to everyone if we fail to fully acknowledge what marriage is, or refuse to take a stand on the issue, because we are afraid of offending someone who lives by a different moral code.

Peace,
Robert
 
stanczyk said:
I cannot think of a more frivolous reason to deny equal protection under the law than an undue attachment to the traditional meaning of the word “marriage.”

How childish.
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time to construct such an intelligent and thoughtful response. But I’ll bite.

Why is it a good thing to remove the procreative aspect from the definition of marriage? What benefit to society comes from such a dismantling.

Peace,
Robert
 
Thanks for the responses.

There seems to be a range of Catholic opinion. Some think that marriages invalid in the eyes of the Church are still marriages if they are between men and women, so my question is meaningless. I don’t see the logic here as a fundamental redefinition of marriage into two categories seems to be involved. Why not three categories?

Some would ban by law all marriages not recognised by the Church. I disagree with the policy, but admire the consistency and honesty.

One or two say the church should stick to its knitting and concentrate on its own beliefs without trying to extend them to others. I agree with that.

Some say the state should get out of marriage (and, I suppose, merely register unions for legal/property purposes). People would be free to marry as they wished, with no legal effect. I could agree with that.

Some prefer not to respond to the question and to instead talk again about the proposal for legally-recognised gay marriages without reference to the greater number of heterosexual marriages not recognised by the Church as marriages but accepted by the state. I’d welcome responses to my original post. 🙂
 
Robert_in_SD said:
Hi Bill:

I think the distinction is that keeping marriage as it has traditionally been understood is not legislating moral conduct, as would be laws against sodomy, adultery, fornication, masturbation, etc.

Traditional marriage does not impact the rights of homosexual people to engage in same-sex conduct of their choosing - monogamous, polyamory, or whatever they mutually decide to do. Proponents of the traditional definition simply want to maintain the reality that marriage is a unique relationship that is oriented towards procreation, rather than redefine it to be nothing but the cultural “approval” of a relationship between two people.

I think that if modern culture wants to formally “approve” same sex relationships, there are better ways to do it, that will not dismantle the long-standing institution of marriage. I think it is a disservice to everyone if we fail to fully acknowledge what marriage is, or refuse to take a stand on the issue, because we are afraid of offending someone who lives by a different moral code.

Peace,
Robert
Click to expand...
I have no problem with what you are suggesting; in fact, I agree with it. If they called them Civil Unions or something else that allows them to do the same thing, but kept marriage as a seperately defined term, then I wouldn’t complain. It is rather childish of the gay marriage supporters to not be satisfied with the term “civil union” when it provides them with the same rights as a heterosexual married couple, simply out of defiance.

I was under the impression that this thread was about prohibition of homosexual unions in general, not merely the term used for them though.
 
stanczyk said:
I cannot think of a more frivolous reason to deny equal protection under the law than an undue attachment to the traditional meaning of the word “marriage.”

How childish.
Click to expand...
My problem is not so much with the traditional meaning of the word, although to name something what it is not is rather Orwellian. War is Peace. Love is hate. My concern is rather with the reality of the institution itself. Marriage is the basis of civilization; it is the means by which the next generation is brought into the world. Marriage implies a marital act, and that is an act which is possible only between opposite sex couples. Same sex couples are inherently incapable of the marital act, incapable of forming the substructure of civilization, incapable of generating the next generation. The term marriage has no applicability to them. It makes about as much sense as saying “my dad is pregnant.”

When a word has been so distorted of meaning as to be used to refer to its opposite, it has become useless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top