Catholics Resist Same-Sex 'Marriage'

  • Thread starter Thread starter John_R
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eric_Olsen said:
and show where “under the pursuit of happiness” the right to marriage is listed. It is not. The right to marry is granted by each state and THEY have the right to not let you marry for whatever reason.
Click to expand...
I did NOT say that it was a right, I said it was CONSIDERED a right.

The State cannot bar you from marriage for ANY reason. They can only stop you from marriage for reasons that pass Constitutional muster. Which brings us back to square one-a state law cannot be established on the basis of the teachings of the Church. There must be objectively defined harm to society that can be proven in a court of law.
 
With regard to your remark: “Unless a person comes to you and confesses a sin or asks for advice, keep your concentration on your own salvation and leave the rest of the world alone.” OK – you got it. Your soul is off limits to me. 😉

But sorry, I can’t promise to be unconcerned with the rest of the world. After all the Divine Mercy Chaplet says, “Have mercy on us and on the whole world.” If you want to debate that one, you’ll have to take it up with the Author Himself.
 
DSF said:
With regard to your remark: “Unless a person comes to you and confesses a sin or asks for advice, keep your concentration on your own salvation and leave the rest of the world alone.” OK – you got it. Your soul is off limits to me. 😉

But sorry, I can’t promise to be unconcerned with the rest of the world. After all the Divine Mercy Chaplet says, “Have mercy on us and on the whole world.” If you want to debate that one, you’ll have to take it up with the Author Himself.
Click to expand...
Praying for mercy for the “whole world” is a vastly different thing from telling specific individuals how sinful they are based on surface assumptions.
 
Fitswimmer said:
I did NOT say that it was a right, I said it was CONSIDERED a right.
Click to expand...
what people consider a right and what is are two different things.
The State cannot bar you from marriage for ANY reason. They can only stop you from marriage for reasons that pass Constitutional muster. Which brings us back to square one-a state law cannot be established on the basis of the teachings of the Church. There must be objectively defined harm to society that can be proven in a court of law.
Click to expand...
Yes the state can bar you for whatever reason they see fit.
 
Eric_Olsen said:
what people consider a right and what is are two different things.

Yes the state can bar you for whatever reason they see fit.
Click to expand...
No, they can’t. For example, the state cannot bar you from marrying a member of another race-see Loving v. Virgina.

The state cannot bar marriage for a reason that violates the Constitution.
 
Eric_Olsen said:
Yes the state can bar you for whatever reason they see fit.
Click to expand...
:confused:

I am not sure why you say that. For example, many states used to ban interracial marriage. But those laws were invalidated when the Supreme Court overturned the state of Virginia’s version of that law. A state’s restrictions on marriage has to meet constitutional standards.
 
When I wrote my original post I was primarily responding to the person who stated the following:

“The legal ability to have a marriage means the institution will exist so they will not be in sin with a loving, lifelong, monogamous relationship with two people of the same gender.”

As practicing Catholics, we have a right and a responsibility to correct our brothers and sisters when they are in error. The person who posted the above statement is saying that if a homosexual couple gets married legally, since they are married, “they will not be in sin”. This person’s statement is in complete opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

My intention was to ask others to pray for those who post untruths about our church, and who spread more error and scandal. I was not basing my comment on a “surface assumption” – the person wrote the untruth right there in black and white for all to see.

From your posts, I gathered that you were in agreement with this person. If I misread your statements and you do not share that person’s view, I sincerely apologize. But I will not apologize for praying for someone who is spreading lies about the teachings of Our Savior and our Church.
 
Fitswimmer said:
No, they can’t. For example, the state cannot bar you from marrying a member of another race-see Loving v. Virgina.

The state cannot bar marriage for a reason that violates the Constitution.
Click to expand...
the race issue is apples and oranges.
The constitution does not gurantee your right to get married just like it does not gurantee the right to steal to pursue my right to happiness.
 
Eric_Olsen said:
the race issue is apples and oranges.
The constitution does not gurantee your right to get married just like it does not gurantee the right to steal to pursue my right to happiness.
Click to expand...
ok, I give-believe what you want. Unconstitutional laws will still be struck down by the courts.
 
Fitswimmer said:
ok, I give-believe what you want. Unconstitutional laws will still be struck down by the courts.
Click to expand...
Well, Plessy vs Ferguson didn’t strike down segregation laws.

In any case, a ban on gay marriage isn’t unconstitutional, no matter how loudly the gay community screams.
 
LRThunder said:
Well, Plessy vs Ferguson didn’t strike down segregation laws.

In any case, a ban on gay marriage isn’t unconstitutional, no matter how loudly the gay community screams.
Click to expand...
It is unconstitutional if it is based purely on religious rules against homosexuality, which is what every discussion I have ever been involved with on this issue has been about.

No state may make a law that has as it’s only foundation “God says so.” The Federal government may not make a law that has as it’s only foundation “God says so”.

If the anti-gay marriage lobby wants to stop gay marriage, they’re going to have to come up with a better argument than God says so.
 
Apparently you missed my earlier posting with links that explain the secular case against gay marriage, here goes…

www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

Also - the liberal case against it.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_156/ai_n6143562
Fitswimmer said:
It is unconstitutional if it is based purely on religious rules against homosexuality, which is what every discussion I have ever been involved with on this issue has been about.

No state may make a law that has as it’s only foundation “God says so.” The Federal government may not make a law that has as it’s only foundation “God says so”.

If the anti-gay marriage lobby wants to stop gay marriage, they’re going to have to come up with a better argument than God says so.
Click to expand...
 
Eric_Olsen said:
Apparently you missed my earlier posting with links that explain the secular case against gay marriage, here goes…

www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

Also - the liberal case against it.

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_156/ai_n6143562
Click to expand...
Those are both very well written opinion pieces and bring up excellent points.

I have no problem with the compromise suggested by the second article, in fact when civil unions were legalized in NJ I thought that was great. It kept marriage in the Church as sacred, yet it gave gay couples what they needed.

However, some of the couples in NJ who have formalized their partnerships that way are still struggling with benefits issues.

If those legal loopholes can be closed and a civil union for any couple is equal under the law to marriage, I think that is a reasonable compromise. Of course, there will always be those on both sides who find the idea objectionable, but it would essentially end the argument.
 
peregrinus_WA said:
Only it is not anyone, it is also any age and any thing :mad:
Click to expand...
You are right.

This is headed towards a full blown Sodom & Gomorrah in the not so distant future.

The Warning, the Miracle and the Chastisement will be God’s intervention in human history as was necessary in the past at different times.

The great flood, the tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah…so shall it be with the Warning, the Miracle and the Chastisement.

God help us.
 
I believe it is highly commendable that the Catholic Charities of Boston and San Francisco have decided to close down their child adoption services altogether, so as not to be part of the social evil developing in those places.

Gospa Mir!
 
The sad part is that you dont need a “civil union” to get those benefits but some sort of legal document.

Sorry to say, the agenda is to destroy marriage in this country as we know it.
Fitswimmer said:
Those are both very well written opinion pieces and bring up excellent points.

I have no problem with the compromise suggested by the second article, in fact when civil unions were legalized in NJ I thought that was great. It kept marriage in the Church as sacred, yet it gave gay couples what they needed.

However, some of the couples in NJ who have formalized their partnerships that way are still struggling with benefits issues.

If those legal loopholes can be closed and a civil union for any couple is equal under the law to marriage, I think that is a reasonable compromise. Of course, there will always be those on both sides who find the idea objectionable, but it would essentially end the argument.
Click to expand...
 
mangy_dog said:
I believe it is highly commendable that the Catholic Charities of Boston and San Francisco have decided to close down their child adoption services altogether, so as not to be part of the social evil developing in those places.

Gospa Mir!
Click to expand...
But sad that the Diocese of San Francisco caved on benefits for same sex partners.
 
Eric_Olsen said:
The sad part is that you dont need a “civil union” to get those benefits but some sort of legal document.

Sorry to say, the agenda is to destroy marriage in this country as we know it.
Click to expand...
We don’t need gay marriage to do that. Divorce and adultery are already doing a fine job. If you go back to history, marraiges arranged to garner alliances, gather more property or strengthen armies pretty much took the sacred out of sacred marriage. People who marry in order to become legal citizens take the sacred out of sacred marriage. People who marry in the Church because they want pretty pictures take the sacred out of sacred marriage. PreNuptual agreements have taken the sacred out of sacred marriage and made it into a business contract.

There are plenty of things that have already taken what was intended as a sacrament and turned it into something far less.
 
Fitswimmer said:
Unconstitutional laws will still be struck down by the courts.
Click to expand...
The federal Defense of Marriage Act (often abbreviated as DOMA) is of dubious constitutionality, but it hasn’t been struck down. Its now 12 years old.

For people unfamilar with DOMA it has two main effects:
  1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
  2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top