Catholics Resist Same-Sex 'Marriage'

[Fitswimmer]

It is a natural truth. It is objective. It is known from right reason. Why would we need “proof” that vice is wrong? What type of “proof”?

Right reason as according to what? What is the basis of that right reason?

What is the definition of natural? The biological argument has been covered.

Let me make this clear-before someone has me kicked out of the Church. I am in NO WAY saying that the Church is incorrect. I am in NO WAY saying that the Church should recognize gay marriage. I am in NO WAY saying that Catholics need to support gay marriage or homosexual activity in any way, or that Catholics and other Christians who believe that it is sinful cannot address that point.

I’m dealing purely with secular, civil, non-religious arguments. If we cannot defend our position in those terms, then we need to acknowledge that. It doesn’t weaken the Church to acknowledge that the civil position differs. The Church is a higher authority than man’s government-which is why Jesus did not involve himself with man’s government. As Catholics we are called to obey God’s law first. If something is against God’s law, whether it is legal according to civil law is immaterial.

 

[Fitswimmer]

The biological difference is not mere attraction, it is personified in the application of the attraction with the final consequence of being unable to produce life through sexual intercourse (based on the choices made while relying solely on attraction) and by defacto being unnatual. It is based on this self-evident difference that homosexual unions cannot and should be be encouraged - specially not by goverment and laws.

Government and laws have always been and should always be to legislate reproduction and make the citizens responsible for bringing a new life into the world; that is the secular purpose of marriage. To apply this to a relationship which is biologically and by definition incapable of producing life is to defy the ‘raison d’etre’ of marriage as a legal contract.

Ok, so if I’m understanding you correctly, the definition of marriage should be changed for heterosexuals. The definition should include that the couple must be open to reproduction. Then, not only would homosexual partners be treated differently, so would any marriage where reproduction was not the main focus.

 

[fix]

Right reason as according to what?

According to what? Reason, of course.

What is the basis of that right reason?

True law. It is engraved in every human person. Do good, avoid evil.

What is the definition of natural?

In conformity with human nature.

The biological argument has been covered.

I am not speaking about biology, but about right actions.

I’m dealing purely with secular, civil, non-religious arguments. If we cannot defend our position in those terms, then we need to acknowledge that.

It seems you mean if we do not accept hedonism and relativism then the truth of our position lacks merit.

It doesn’t weaken the Church to acknowledge that the civil position differs The Church is a higher authority than man’s government-which is why Jesus did not involve himself with man’s government. As Catholics we are called to obey God’s law first. If something is against God’s law, whether it is legal according to civil law is immaterial.

It is not simply a difference in opinion.

 

[Fitswimmer]

According to what? Reason, of course.

True law. It is engraved in every human person. Do good, avoid evil.

In conformity with human nature.

I am not speaking about biology, but about right actions.

It seems you mean if we do not accept hedonism and relativism then the truth of our position lacks merit.

It is not simply a difference in opinion.

Where did I say that everyone MUST accept homosexual marriage or behavior?

And as Sr Corrine told me back in 5th grade, you cannot define a term with the same term. “Reason” cannot be defined with the term “reason”

I think a quick glance at today’s paper or the evening news easily refutes your premise that “true law is engraved in every person to do good and avoid evil”. That is God’s law, but it is the free choice of every person to accept or reject it.

 

[Crow]

Ok, so if I’m understanding you correctly, the definition of marriage should be changed for heterosexuals. The definition should include that the couple must be open to reproduction. Then, not only would homosexual partners be treated differently, so would any marriage where reproduction was not the main focus.

In principal that is correct. And once again, we are back where we started:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitswimmer
If marriage has as it’s “sole purpose” the management of reproduction-then nobody should ever marry unless they plan on having children.

Bingo!!! You’ve got it!
I’m glad we agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitswimmer
What about those who cannot have children, those who choose not to have children and those who are beyond childbearing years? I believe those people currently have the right to marry-should they lose it?

Although their respective situations are worthy of a dignified compasion (including the situation of homosexuals I would point out), they are all disctinctively different than that of homosexual unions.

1. Thos who choose ‘not to have children’ should NOT get married as per your previous statement.
2. Those beyond child bearing years, or those who are sterile have a relationship that in principal is open to life, thus in principal may marry.

The difference is this;

A heterosexual couple who cannot, for reasons beyond their control (including old age), bear children, are lacking something since their union in principal should be able to produce offsprings.

Homosexual couples are lacking nothing, even whole, they cannot bring a new life into the world.

In justice, the one who lacks something for the sake of terms beyond their control, cannot be held accountable for their lacking - they shoulod be able to conceive but cant. Homosexual unions lack nothing, by default they cannot, nor were meant, to have children. They engage in their union but their union has nothing of a marriage which is devoted to ‘family life’ or devoted to ‘bringing into the world children’. One lacks, the other by nature cannot. Thus the two situations are completely different with different consequences one with respect to the other.

Homosexual unions, biologically CANNOT be equal to heterosexual marriage. Simple logic cannot dictate any other conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitswimmer
Gay marriage-and that’s the issue we are discussing here is about marriage between two consenting adults. Not about children, not about animals. The same arguments simply do not apply. This is the internet age-you can find a fringe group lobbying for just about anything, that doesn’t mean that the argument holds water.

Looks at the argument used to support those ‘fringe groups’ - they are nearly identical to those supporting homosexuality.

And by the way, these are NO ‘fringe groups’; one is a federally recongnized, legal and official political group, the other openly engages in a legal and very lucrative business.

Or do I misinterpret what you call ‘fringe’?

20 years ago - was not the homosexual groups termed ‘fringe’? Does the ‘fringe’ term mean anything at all - really?

 

[Maureen_Fiore]

Marriage is sacred and is between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man and a woman and a woman. Marriage is a sacrament just like all of the other seven. It has a purpose and is held by the church in a high esteem. We should not allow our society to dictate to the church that marriage should be allowed between two gay couples. Marriage is between a man and a woman and the purpose is to procreate. Unfortunately, some marriages are childless but they can adopt if they wish.

 

[Fitswimmer]

So when does the “No Marriage Without Children” campaign start?

I’ve got no problem with it, it’s consistent and logical.

 

[b_ulmen]

I know gay couples who have wonderful, long term relationships. They work hard, they pay their taxes, they contribute to charities and they volunteer. Because they have no children, they have more time to give and usually more disposable income to donate.

How is that different from heterosexual couples without children? Or are they of no benefit to society either?

Didn’t mean to get another thread going, just pointing out that the logic/arguments must be equally appled. Some don’t want Christian morality enforced by the government, I don’t want secular morality enforced by the government.

 

[Crow]

So when does the “No Marriage Without Children” campaign start?

I’ve got no problem with it, it’s consistent and logical.

It actually started some 2,000 years ago from what I know, but not everyone jump on board with the program.

So you agree with my post or just being sarcastic? With all due respect you seem to be doing a good job avoiding to reply to it.

 

[Crow]

Didn’t mean to get another thread going, just pointing out that the logic/arguments must be equally appled. Some don’t want Christian morality enforced by the government, I don’t want secular morality enforced by the government.

The goverment will neforce the morality of the majority for so long as they can get the votes.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on their next meal.

 

[Fitswimmer]

It actually started some 2,000 years ago from what I know, but not everyone jump on board with the program.

So you agree with my post or just being sarcastic? With all due respect you seem to be doing a good job avoiding to reply to it.

I have no problem denying marriage to anyone that isn’t going to have children. It’s defining marriage as specific to the act of procreation, and therefore it is fair to everyone. Would there be some other classification for folks that were either biologically incapable or simply did not choose to have children? Would the benefits be the same or would benefits only apply to the “procreating class”?

I’m not being sarcastic at all, I followed your argument to it’s logical conclusion.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Didn’t mean to get another thread going, just pointing out that the logic/arguments must be equally appled. Some don’t want Christian morality enforced by the government, I don’t want secular morality enforced by the government.

I don’t want Christian morality in the US government, I don’t want Muslim morality in the US government, I don’t want Jewish or Evangelical morality in the US government. I’m a big believer in the “no establishment” clause.

 

[fix]

Where did I say that everyone MUST accept homosexual marriage or behavior?

I did not say you said that.

And as Sr Corrine told me back in 5th grade, you cannot define a term with the same term. “Reason” cannot be defined with the term “reason”

Well, what do you mean by “according to what”? And, I was not giving a definition.

I think a quick glance at today’s paper or the evening news easily refutes your premise that “true law is engraved in every person to do good and avoid evil”. That is God’s law, but it is the free choice of every person to accept or reject it.

How is that a refutation? That people reject what is true does not mean it ceases to be true.

 

[fix]

I don’t want Christian morality in the US government, I don’t want Muslim morality in the US government, I don’t want Jewish or Evangelical morality in the US government. I’m a big believer in the “no establishment” clause.

Where do you think morality comes from?

 

[fix]

As a sidenote, I do find it quite interesting how some supposed Catholics who are in Full Communion with Rome are proponents of intrinsically disordered behaviour (homosexuality) that they are not given licence to be proponents of yet use the argument that not everyone is held accountable to moral law as not all people are Catholics and distort the fact that homosexual relations are intrinsically disordered.

Is not the moral law written in all our hearts and does not endorsing grave sin make one complicit in the grave sin being committed by the wrong doers? Fr Serpa seems to think so yet some supposedly faithful Catholics persist in such scandal and calling things ‘good and wonderuful’ (homosexuality) what the Church and common sense have declared to be ‘bad’…

I felt the need to mention this considering the numerous members who are Islam affiliated who espose many things contrary to Catholicism yet pretend to be Catholic in order to lead unsuspecting people astray. It seems that there are some people as well purporting to be Catholic too, yet their endorsements of intrisically disordered behaviour are a testament that they most likely are not in particualar when they have been kindly corrected by priests yet persist in their scandal.

Some food for thought…

Ave Maria

I understand what you are saying. It is kinda like politicians who say I am Catholic on abortion, BUT, I do not want to “force” that on others. It is not a Catholic position or a logical position.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I understand what you are saying. It is kinda like politicians who say I am Catholic on abortion, BUT, I do not want to “force” that on others. It is not a Catholic position or a logical position.

It’s not in any way the same thing, but I’m not going to get carpel tunnel trying to explain it.

I clearly understand the thought processes of those here and believe it or not I respect them. I just also happen to respect the Constitution of the United States and the rights of those Americans who have not chosen to follow the Catholic faith.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Where do you think morality comes from?

I think it comes from God, but my word is not and cannot be the law of the land.

 

[He_Man]

It’s not in any way the same thing, but I’m not going to get carpel tunnel trying to explain it.

I clearly understand the thought processes of those here and believe it or not I respect them. I just also happen to respect the Constitution of the United States and the rights of those Americans who have not chosen to follow the Catholic faith.

That’s fine. But if you think God is going to buy the lame excuse of Americans Catholics that “Constitution > God’s law,” you are sadly mistaken. I seriously doubt that will fly with the Lord.

 

[Crow]

I have no problem denying marriage to anyone that isn’t going to have children. It’s defining marriage as specific to the act of procreation, and therefore it is fair to everyone. Would there be some other classification for folks that were either biologically incapable or simply did not choose to have children? Would the benefits be the same or would benefits only apply to the “procreating class”?

I’m not being sarcastic at all, I followed your argument to it’s logical conclusion.

Hence you thus agree that homosexual couples should not have the priviliege of getting married?

I do not see a need for a new ‘classification’ for those couples who are sterile for reasons outside their control, as older couples, as I stated above.

It would be difficult to deny marriage to those who decide not to have children (heterosexual couples that is). I know that the Church does not allow couples to be married if they openly state they do not intend to have children, or for instance, if one or the other in a married couple openly admits not wanting children to my knowledge this forms justification for an anulment. But to request the goverment to inforce this by law? Not sure about that.

 

[Crow]

It’s not in any way the same thing, but I’m not going to get carpel tunnel trying to explain it.

I clearly understand the thought processes of those here and believe it or not I respect them. I just also happen to respect the Constitution of the United States and the rights of those Americans who have not chosen to follow the Catholic faith.

Your question then is one of priority.

You are correct taht the Catholic faith olbiges you to respect the constitution - no problems there, but the faith should trump the law if there is a contradiction between the two. The CCC explains this quite clearly.

The rights of those who have chosen not to follow the Catholic faith should be respected as well - I agree. But all in respecting their rights, and their persons, by the catholic faith we should not, under any circumstance within our power, encourage them in their vices - that includes the passing of laws.