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

[TracerBullet]

. I’m slightly concerned about injustices that are currently taking place. I’m very concerned about what will take place if certain gay activists get their way.

What exactly will take place?

How would you protect the rights of all those who believe this is wrong?

what rights are endangered exactly?

(And I mean everyone, not just guys in white collars. Remember, every time this is put to a vote of the people, it is voted down, so there are alot of people out there who are intolerant, hate-spewing bigots.)

At one time or another 41 of the fifty states had laws on their books or in their state constitution making interracial marriage illegal…just because something is popular does not mean it is right or just

Refusing services to a biracial or minority person because of their color is an injustice and it should be illegal. It hasn’t much to do with refusing to perform a service because the service itself goes against your beliefs. We aren’t talking about refusing to sell a gay person a cupcake. We are talking about refusing to participate in a gravely immoral action, one which you believe your participation in could put you in a state of mortal sin. No business owner or employee should be forced by law to participate in something they believe in inherently evil

.You do realize that racists believe racial equality and interracial marriage are inherently evil.

You are engaging in special pleading. On the one hand you want to justify discriminatory actions against a minority but on the other you denounce those same actions when directed against another minority.

Even if homosexual lifestyles

What exactly is this “lifestyle”?

were a “civil right” (and I don’t believe they are) the service provider isn’t refusing to provide service because of the fact that the couple is gay.

That’s exactly why services are being denied

 

[TracerBullet]

Already, there are schools that have developed programs to indoctrinate children into a belief system that affirms homosexual acts and lifestyles as normal and okay.

Wow…programs to indoctrinate children.

Any real world examples of this?

I expect such programs will become more common and more intense if other states begin to accept gay marriage. (Once again, most of the times the issue is voted on by the people it is voted down. Even when it is not, it doesn’t win by a very large margin. So gay activists have alot of intolerant, biggoted children to reeducate.)

At one time or another 41 of the fifty states had laws on their books or in their state constitution making interracial marriage illegal…just because something is popular does not mean it is right or just

 

[Allegra]

That’s exactly why services are being denied

If it was the reason, they would be denied service regardless of what the service was for. For example, if a gay person wanted to rent a hall for a birthday party, there would not be a problem. It is only because they want to rent it for an immoral purpose that there is a problem. To say that the person is being denied because of their sexual preference is intellectually dishonest. They are being denied because the owner doesn’t want to participate in a sinful act. If the owner refused to rent the hall to gay people for any occasion, I would say that is unfair, but if that isn’t the case, and the owner would rent the space to the gay customer for another type of event, then it would be wrong to say that they are being denied service because they are gay. Would the owner be within his right to refuse to rent his space for a Planned Parenthood function? What about for a dog fight? (Assuming it was legal.)

 

[Allegra]

Wow…programs to indoctrinate children.

Any real world examples of this?

At one time or another 41 of the fifty states had laws on their books or in their state constitution making interracial marriage illegal…just because something is popular does not mean it is right or just

There are plenty of real world examples. Just do a search on this forum to start with. There’s dozens of cases all over the internet, although many of the programs have been successfully removed from the school by concerned parents and community members that don’t want their children being taught that kind of thing. You see, currently, they have the right to disagree.

I haven’t said that something being popular means it is right or just. What I’ve said is that gay activists have a lot of convincing to do. Most of those laws about interracial marriage changed after people began to see that they were neither fair nor beneficial. Truth was behind that movement. It’s not behind gay “marriage”.

 

[Allegra]

You are engaging in special pleading. On the one hand you want to justify discriminatory actions against a minority but on the other you denounce those same actions when directed against another minority.

What exactly is this “lifestyle”?

One minority is a group of people who look a certain way because their ancestry is from a certain continent. The other minority are a group of people who want to commit an act that I believe is sinful, dishonest, and distructive to society and force me to go along with it. These two minorities are not equal. Lots of groups are minorities. PETA people are minority. Left handed individuals are a minority. Iguana owners are a minority. Just because a minority exists doesn’t mean that others have to bend over backward to acccomadate them. Interracial couples didn’t require anything of anyone to get married. Same sex couples require a complete redefinition of marriage by our society. (Without the consent of half of it.)

 

[Allegra]

What exactly will take place?

what rights are endangered exactly?

I’ve already answered this question in this thread. The rights that are endangered are the right to disent from this immoral ideology without fear of legalized persecution and the right to practice one’s religion in the public sector.

 

[harding]

Is anyone interested in my OP? :nope:

Sure, I’m game.

would you …] 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?

Yes–under certain conditions. But in a multicultural society it seems simplest and best for government to stay out of marriage.

Our contention stems from the discrimination government makes between married and unmarried persons by giving special rights and responsibilities to married couples.

If government respected our individual rights by staying out of marriage, we could each live by our own definitions.

-Dave

 

[Allegra]

Sure, I’m game.

Yes–under certain conditions. But in a multicultural society it seems simplest and best for government to stay out of marriage.

Our contention stems from the discrimination government makes between married and unmarried persons by giving special rights and responsibilities to married couples.

If government respected our individual rights by staying out of marriage, we could each live by our own definitions.

-Dave

It would be better than redefining it for the homosexual agenda or anyone elses. At least they couldn’t say that everyone wasn’t getting the same share of nothing. On the other hand, I do think there is a benefit to society when the government gives some benefits to those who enter a traditional marriage. Unfortunately, it may not be possible to keep that going for much longer.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

No one is against the vocalization of your religious beliefs…but the restriction of other’s State defined civil rights BASED on your religious convictions that not all of us hold is what is the sticking point for me…if your religous beleifs demand you not engage in same sex unions…>DON’T…but why seek to refuse other’s State defined civil rights BASED on your religous convictions?

The definition of marriage is not a religiously based definition. Marriage is not oriented toward procreation just because the Church (or the Qu’ran, or the Bible) says it is, just as a circle has no corners separate and apart from what religion says about it. Marriage is oriented towards procreation because that’s always been the nature of marriage. “Same sex marriage” is as non-sensical as a circle with corners. This being the case, people opposed to redefining marriage are not trying to deprive same sex couples of their “right to marry.” Marriage is a right, but there is no right to redefine what marriage is, and always has been.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Assuming arguendo. My, how big of you to assume arguendo something for which there is overwhelming historical evidence, and no serious scholar disputes. Yes, let us assume it arguendo, since it is arguendo.

Did some further research on this. While there are a handful of recent gay-friendly articles discussing this theory, you are hardly justified in concluding the historical evidence is overwhelming. Moreover, the issue is hotly disputed.

[edit] Pais

Further information: Healing the centurion’s servant

This event is referred to in both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10 and tells of Jesus healing a centurion’s servant. Luke 7:2 (TNIV) says: “There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die.” The term translated from the Greek as “servant” is pais. This can be translated in a number of different ways including “child” (e.g., Matthew 2:16; Lk 2:43, 8:51-54 where it refers to a girl), “son” (John 4:51) or “servant” (Lk 15:26, Acts 4:25); elsewhere it is unclear whether “son” or “servant” is meant (Acts 3:13, 3:26, 4:27, 4:30).

Horner[46] and Helminiak[47] both suggest a homosexual theme to this text. Helminiak argues that this is implied by the broader context of the narrative suggesting an unusual level of concern about the servant, whereas Horner suggests that use of the term “valued highly” implies a sexual relationship. Horner goes on to argue that, as Jesus commended the centurion for his faith (Matthew 8:10; Luke 7:9), it shows that Jesus approved of their relationship, otherwise he would have condemned him. However, a contrasting viewpoint is that the term “highly valued” (Greek ἔντιμος or entimos) simply suggests a genuine care for the person or, more archaically, that the centurion was fond of this slave. [48]

Other biblical scholars dismiss any suggestions of a homosexual theme as deliberately distorted interpretations of the text.[49][50] Marston argues that Jesus would not have condoned any homosexual relationship, in line with the weight of other scriptural evidence, while Chapman (2005) suggests that even if the relationship had been homosexual, his lack of condemnation does not necessarily equate to his approval of them.

None of the standard professional Greek lexicons and dictionaries identify pais as a reference to a homosexual partner.[51]

46.^ Horner, T. (1978) The Centurion’s Servant. Insight: A Quarterly of Gay Catholic Opinion, Vol. 2, No. 3 (Summer).
47.^ Helminiak, D.A. (2000) What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality. Alamo Square Press.
48.^ Luke 7 NET Bible.
49.^ Marston, P. (1995) Dear Peter Tatchell The Independent, Tuesday 21 March 1995.
50.^ Marston, P. (2003) Christians, Gays and Gay Christians. Free Methodists.
51.^ Balz & Schneider, ‘Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament’ (1990), Liddell, Scott, Jones, & McKenzie, ‘A Greek-English Lexicon’ (rev. and augm. throughout, 19996), Brown, ‘New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology’ (1986), Louw & Nida, ‘Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: Based on semantic domains’ (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition 1996), Zodhiates, ‘The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament’ (electronic ed. 2000), Arndt, Danker, & Bauer (eds.), ‘A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature’ (3rd ed. 2000). Kittel, Bromiley, & Friedrich (eds.), ‘Theological Dictionary of the New Testament’ (1964-).

This brief description of the issue hardly defines it as undisputed.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Hokomai]

Thanks for the responses to my OP! They are coming thick and fast!

 

[phoooiee]

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.

I don’t think the question can be completely answered without addressing a few other questions: do children have a right to a male and a female parent? Are males and females truly different, and thus, do they have different and unique gifts to offer their children? In short- is a male completely replaceable by a female- are the genders interchangeable? What happens to a boy raised with no male role model? What happens to a girl raised with no female role model?

If the answer is truly yes- if male and female have nothing unique to offer and there is no difference between one and the other- then the Church can morally “stick to its knitting and concentrate on its own beliefs”.

It is not the practice of the Church to generally interfere with the state:

“It accords with the nature of the Church that it is separated from the state and that its faith may not be imposed by the state but is based on convictions that are freely arrived at”.- Joseph Ratzinger

However, it is the practice of the Church to stand up for the rights of those who cannot speak for themselves. Thus, the real issue is- which is the greater moral concern? The right of the homosexual couple to define their relationship as marriage, or the right of children to have a male and female parent? This is the issue which has caused the Church to insert herself, rather than leaving it alone as in virtually every other case involving the sexual behavior of consenting adults.

(Obviously, there are cases in which single parents raise their children- but should the increasing prevalence of these cases lead us to determine that children are not affected by the situation? What do the statistics say about children raised by a single parent? Should we consider this to be an unfortunate situation through which the single parent heroically struggles and sacrifices, or should we define it as the new normal, and insist that it has no effect on the child?)

I am curious on the OP’s thoughts about the necessity of male and female parents, and how this relates to the question of homosexual marriage.

 

[Orogeny]

Slavery has always been between an owner and slave, although at times it included multiple slaves (don’t know if it ever included multiple owners). It has never been between two slaves.

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

Slavery has been around a lot longer than the church has and, even in pagan societies, it didn’t include two slaves so this isn’t only about the church.

Peace

Perspective

Really? Slavery and marriage are equivalent in your view? Are you advocating a constitutional amendment to abolish marriage?

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

The right to marry your partner.

What does that mean? I cannot marry another man. I cannot marry my son or my daughter (if I had one). I cannot marry my mother. I cannot be married to more than one woman at a time.

You can’t do any of those things either.

I can marry someone of the opposite sex that I am not related to and as long as neither of us are already married.

You have the same ability.

So what exactly can I do that you can’t?

Peace

Tim

 

[stanczyk]

There is no “right” to marry your partner, at least not in a constitutional sense. But there is a Constititional right to equal protection under the law, whichs means the government cannot discriminate in issuing marriage benefits based on gender.

 

[markomalley]

It seems that some words from Pope Leo XIII would be appropriate here. From his 1880 Encyclical, Arcanum (On Christian Marriage):

1. Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.
2. Hence are owing civil marriages, commonly so called; hence laws are framed which impose impediments to marriage; hence arise judicial sentences affecting the marriage contract, as to whether or not it have been rightly made. Lastly, all power of prescribing and passing judgment in this class of cases is, as we see, of set purpose denied to the Catholic Church, so that no regard is paid either to her divine power or to her prudent laws. Yet, under these, for so many centuries, have the nations lived on whom the light of civilization shone bright with the wisdom of Christ Jesus.
3. Nevertheless, the naturalists,[32] as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature. Innocent III. therefore. and Honorius III, our predecessors, affirmed not falsely nor rashly that a sacrament of marriage existed ever amongst the faithful and unbelievers.[33] We call to witness the monuments of antiquity, as also the manners and customs of those people who, being the most civilized, had the greatest knowledge of law and equity. In the minds of all of them it was a fixed and foregone conclusion that, when marriage was thought of, it was thought of as conjoined with religion and holiness. Hence, among those, marriages were commonly celebrated with religious ceremonies, under the authority of pontiffs, and with the ministry of priests. So mighty, even in the souls ignorant of heavenly doctrine, was the force of nature, of the remembrance of their origin, and of the conscience of the human race. As, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone in sacred matters professes the office of teaching.
4. Next, the dignity of the sacrament must be considered, for through addition of the sacrament the marriages of Christians have become far the noblest of all matrimonial unions. But to decree and ordain concerning the sacrament is, by the will of Christ Himself, so much a part of the power and duty of the Church that it is plainly absurd to maintain that even the very smallest fraction of such power has been transferred to the civil ruler.

(the rest is worth reading, as well)

You can see that he rejects the role of the civil state in determining any criteria for marriage, rightfully asserting that it is the role assigned to the Church by Christ. In fact, one could make a strong argument from this Encyclical, that the State properly has NO role in marriage, even an administrative one.

Something for you, who advocate a role for civil government in marriage (on either side of the homosexual divide) to consider.

 

[Fan_of_Trent]

If we are indeed discussing this topic in the context of the Catholic faith, one need only consider the underlying truth from which the Church’s position is derived - the theology of the body and the foundation therein of true morality as taught by Holy Mother Church.

Ask yourself: Why does the Church oppose contraception? Why is the Church opposed to masturbation? Why is the church opposed to cohabitation? Why is the church opposed to premarital sex? Why is the church opposed to in vitro fertilization? Why is the church opposed to stem cell research?

A simple answer to the above questions is that all of the above actions are disordered both in terms of natural law and order and the fundamental structure upon which Catholic morality is based. The position of the church in these matters are not formed in a vacuum or strictly some kind of arbitrary ruling of a pope without any reason. Faith and morals are built upon Truth with a capital T. Truth does not change or conform to societal notions. The whole idea is that societtoys to conform to that Truth. That is what morality is all about. There must be an absolute frame of reference or we have societal chaos where anything goes. The faithful used to respect the Church, her teachings, the magisterium and religion in general much more so then what we see today.

At any rate, if one part of morality derived from the truth fails or is changed, then the teachings of the church with regard to all morality crumbles. Truth does not change. Has there been elements of organic change in the Church over the centuries? Absolutely. But you have to understand what organic change is, and what we are talking about here is not organic in any sense of the term. The notion of same sex marriage is a radical departure from orthodox Catholic belief.

The Church is not bound by the United States Constitution nor is it a democracy. In fact, in some circles in Rome there was a feeling that the Constitution was one of the foundational problems that would lead to the demise of society. What we call modernism today, was originally called Americanism by Pope Leo XIII. The concept that individual liberty trumps absolutely everything including personal religious values, societal norms and values, and what is to be deemed right or wrong was foreseen as being problematic. If one thinks about it, how did we get to where we’re at today? Food for thought…

It is important to note that if we want to discuss same-sex marriage in a truly Catholic context, civil law matters not. It is a theological and religious consideration of objective morality, which includes all of the teachings of the Church’s magisterium. Read Pope John Paul II’s book on the theology of the body or consult some traditional Catholic resources such as St. Thomas Aquinas and you may better understand the Catholic position. There is an intrinsic logic to Truth. Again, Truth does not change. If it did, the Truth would be false.

God Bless…

 

[TracerBullet]

There is no “right” to marry your partner, at least not in a constitutional sense.

The supreme court disagrees with you on that point and says that the right to marry is constitutionally protected. In fact it has disagreed with you no less than 16 times. The most famous of these is in the ruling of Loving vs. The Commonwealth of Virginia

But there is a Constititional right to equal protection under the law, whichs means the government cannot discriminate in issuing marriage benefits based on gender.

Spot on

 

[stanczyk]

The supreme court disagrees with you on that point and says that the right to marry is constitutionally protected. In fact it has disagreed with you no less than 16 times. The most famous of these is in the ruling of Loving vs. The Commonwealth of Virginia

Spot on

Loving is referring to a natural right to marriage, not a constitutional right.

 

[Bill_Martin]

If we are indeed discussing this topic in the context of the Catholic faith, one need only consider the underlying truth from which the Church’s position is derived - the theology of the body and the foundation therein of true morality as taught by Holy Mother Church.

Ask yourself: Why does the Church oppose contraception? Why is the Church opposed to masturbation? Why is the church opposed to cohabitation? Why is the church opposed to premarital sex? Why is the church opposed to in vitro fertilization? Why is the church opposed to stem cell research?

A simple answer to the above questions is that all of the above actions are disordered both in terms of natural law and order and the fundamental structure upon which Catholic morality is based. The position of the church in these matters are not formed in a vacuum or strictly some kind of arbitrary ruling of a pope without any reason. Faith and morals are built upon Truth with a capital T. Truth does not change or conform to societal notions. The whole idea is that societtoys to conform to that Truth. That is what morality is all about. There must be an absolute frame of reference or we have societal chaos where anything goes. The faithful used to respect the Church, her teachings, the magisterium and religion in general much more so then what we see today.

At any rate, if one part of morality derived from the truth fails or is changed, then the teachings of the church with regard to all morality crumbles. Truth does not change. Has there been elements of organic change in the Church over the centuries? Absolutely. But you have to understand what organic change is, and what we are talking about here is not organic in any sense of the term. The notion of same sex marriage is a radical departure from orthodox Catholic belief.

The Church is not bound by the United States Constitution nor is it a democracy. In fact, in some circles in Rome there was a feeling that the Constitution was one of the foundational problems that would lead to the demise of society. What we call modernism today, was originally called Americanism by Pope Leo XIII. The concept that individual liberty trumps absolutely everything including personal religious values, societal norms and values, and what is to be deemed right or wrong was foreseen as being problematic. If one thinks about it, how did we get to where we’re at today? Food for thought…

It is important to note that if we want to discuss same-sex marriage in a truly Catholic context, civil law matters not. It is a theological and religious consideration of objective morality, which includes all of the teachings of the Church’s magisterium. Read Pope John Paul II’s book on the theology of the body or consult some traditional Catholic resources such as St. Thomas Aquinas and you may better understand the Catholic position. There is an intrinsic logic to Truth. Again, Truth does not change. If it did, the Truth would be false.

God Bless…

But this thread is about civil law, namely whether civil law should compel people to live the teachings of the Church.

Nobody is saying that same sex marriage is not disordered or that it is not sinful.