Church def. of marriage and gov't

[merne9]

Hi, I can’t seem to overcome a hurdle with my husband when it comes to Catholic church definition of marriage and the governments definition of marriage.
He is a convert (previous Atheist) so I try to explain things with more logic.
I don’t know how to answer this; Why can’t the government have it’s own definition of marriage and the church have it’s own definition of marriage?
He seems to think that we are better off separating church and state.
He believes having gay people use the word marriage to explain the status of their relationship will not affect OUR marriage or other peoples marriages.
Any ideas will help thanks!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Hi, I can’t seem to overcome a hurdle with my husband when it comes to Catholic church definition of marriage and the governments definition of marriage.
He is a convert (previous Atheist) so I try to explain things with more logic.
I don’t know how to answer this; Why can’t the government have it’s own definition of marriage and the church have it’s own definition of marriage?
He seems to think that we are better off separating church and state.
He believes having gay people use the word marriage to explain the status of their relationship will not affect OUR marriage or other peoples marriages.
Any ideas will help thanks!

The definition of marriage and laws enacted and as enforced by the state with regard to marriage have a profound social effect.

If or when you have children, ask your husband if he would think that your children should be taught that homosexual relations are equivalent to heterosexual relations.

Should both of you die in an accident, making your child an orphan, which may be far fetched but is possible, and nobody in your family steps up to adopting and raising your little one, would your husband be okay with the state placing your child with a gay couple?

The first scenario is already happening in public grade schools. As for the second scenario, there is an actual case in the UK (but not involving death of the parents) of the state placing two young boys with a gay couple, against the wishes of a poor Slovakian family who could not provide for their basic and educational needs. See here. Which side will your husband take in that case, the family or the state?

,

 

[dmar198]

Hi, I can’t seem to overcome a hurdle with my husband when it comes to Catholic church definition of marriage and the governments definition of marriage.
He is a convert (previous Atheist) so I try to explain things with more logic.
I don’t know how to answer this; Why can’t the government have it’s own definition of marriage and the church have it’s own definition of marriage?
He seems to think that we are better off separating church and state.
He believes having gay people use the word marriage to explain the status of their relationship will not affect OUR marriage or other peoples marriages.
Any ideas will help thanks!

---

Catholic Reasons Against “Same-Sex Marriage” - from “Considerations Regarding Proposals to give Legal Recognition to [Homosexual] Unions” by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

“[Homosexual] activities…do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society.” – Considerations 8

“Sexual relations are…[supposed to] express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and [be] open to the transmission of new life.” “[H]omosexual acts…close the sexual act to the gift of life [and] do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.” – Considerations 7, CCC 2357

“[C]hildren who [are] placed in the care of [homosexual couples] would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. … [This] would actually mean doing violence to these children…[because it] place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.” – Considerations 7

“[M]arried couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest.” “[C]ivil law [therefore] grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.” – Considerations 9

---

I would add that we can know from reason alone that sex is only for a man and a woman because that’s how we’re designed anatomically, that’s how our bonding hormones oxytocin and vassopressin work together, and it’s how our genetic code is reproduced in nature. A government that honors relationships that go against the natural law, is a government that has abandoned the principle that our rights come from “the laws of nature and nature’s God.” (The Declaration of Independence)

I would also add that “same-sex marriage” doesn’t promote equality but inequality. When you give rights to homosexual couples that you don’t give to single people, you treat single people unequally solely on the basis that they haven’t fallen in love yet. That isn’t fair. Marriage rights only make sense if marriage is about children. If we give special rights to people simply because they’ve fallen in love, that’s not equality, it’s inequality.

 

[glendab]

Hello Merne.

Hi, I can’t seem to overcome a hurdle with my husband when it comes to Catholic church definition of marriage and the governments definition of marriage.
He is a convert (previous Atheist) so I try to explain things with more logic.
I don’t know how to answer this; Why can’t the government have it’s own definition of marriage and the church have it’s own definition of marriage?
He seems to think that we are better off separating church and state.
He believes having gay people use the word marriage to explain the status of their relationship will not affect OUR marriage or other peoples marriages.
Any ideas will help thanks!

First off I’d like to point out that there already is in this country, depending on which state your in a state “definition” of marriage that IS different from the Church’s definition of Marriage. For instance, Common Law Marriages. Depending upon the State you live in, there are varying laws that determine the parameters that must be met before a co-habitation situation can be called a Common Law Marriage with all the legal rights and privileges in such a marriage. This is NOT what the Church teaches IS A MARRIAGE, but it is a legal “definition” based upon the circumstances. It is the State’s way of acknowledging married folks and it’s origins are as old as the idea of Common Law.

Where this becomes problematic for the Church is when either individual parties or a governing body try to insist they are in fact married according to Church definition and expect the Church to bow to the legal framework of their particular situation and acknowledge they are married. We can say, “yes, you have a legal marriage but there is no Sacramental Marriage,” and that sometimes disturbs people.

Church and State are in fact** two separate things**. What he means is the Church shouldn’t challenge the State and her laws nor should the State interfere in Church matters, however those proponents of “separation of Church and State,” usually don’t include the *second separation *and think the State should be allowed to govern the Church in it’s domains in all matters. Some try for governing the Church in some matters and marriage happens to be one of them - think Henry and his several wives and the birth of the Anglican Church.

You hubby’s third statement regarding the hot button issue of gay “marriages,” is a pragmatic way of detaching oneself from the issue so as to avoid an emotional entanglement which may be very detrimental to one’s spiritual welfare and would allow for a distance to grow in which a person can stay un-invested emotionally, it is just that - an safe emotional distance. That is prudent in regards one’s spiritual health and pat hubby on his back for that little bit of wisdom in preserving one’s own peace of mind.

HOWEVER, in the legal arena in which the issues are being duked out, there are those who take it for granted that the State governs the Church in her domains and we as a Church will have to knuckle under to the State’s wishes regarding marriage. Again keep in mind Henry and his wives and the devastation that marriage bed caused the Church. History in some form may be repeating itself. That is a reality.

The Church has always had her right to Marry folks and it has been a Sacrament since Jesus gave it to us. That is Church teaching and cannot change regardless of whatever any State says about it. We will die to defend it as has happened in the past. It is THAT important. So while a personal detachment for the sake to peace in one’s home is warranted, remember our Martyrs and some how went to the Cross over the Church’s teaching on marriage.

Prudence is a virtue and give your hubby some acknowledgement on his ability to see the spiritual side of the issues.

Glenda

 

[merne9]

thank you all so much for sharing your knowledge.

 

[rossum]

Hi, I can’t seem to overcome a hurdle with my husband when it comes to Catholic church definition of marriage and the governments definition of marriage.
He is a convert (previous Atheist) so I try to explain things with more logic.
I don’t know how to answer this; Why can’t the government have it’s own definition of marriage and the church have it’s own definition of marriage?
He seems to think that we are better off separating church and state.
He believes having gay people use the word marriage to explain the status of their relationship will not affect OUR marriage or other peoples marriages.
Any ideas will help thanks!

I am coming at this from your husband’s position. Civil marriage allows divorce, while Catholic marriage does not. The two are already different. Different religions have different rules. Muslim men can marry up to four wives, religiously, though most governments will only recognise one of the wives for legal purposes. Jewish marriage allowed for more than one wife, Deuteronomy 21:15-17. Religious marriages and government marriages have been different in many places for many years. Marriages have also differed between religions. In this your husband is correct.

Separation of Church and state is generally a good thing. Would you want to live in Iran or Saudi Arabia, where the two are not separated? The English government used to fine people who did not attend a protestant Church of England service on Sunday. They don’t do that any more, but the C of E is still the established church. The French and US Constitutions both have a separation of church and state. The majority of Americans are Protestant. Would you think it a good idea if the majority started enforcing Protestant practices in America?

How does to men, or two women, getting married harm your marriage? Same sex couples have been getting married in the Netherlands since 2001. Did that have any harmful effect on your marriage? Same sex marriages have been happening in Massachusetts since 2004. Did you notice any harmful effects then. Proposition 8 in California was passed in 2008. Did you notice any beneficial effect on you marriage from that? I find it difficult to see how your particular marriage can be harmed in any specific way by same sex couples marrying.

Sorry I can’t be more helpful, but it seems to me that your husband has the right in this case. Church marriages and civil marriages are already different.

$0.02

rossum

 

[kozlosap]

One word Rossum, Bravo!

 

[InSearchofGrace]

thank you all so much for sharing your knowledge.

So, not surprisingly you get pro-SS"M" advice as well, who misunderstand and misuse the argument of separation of church and state. It would be worthwhile for your husband to read The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State .

,

 

[merne9]

thank you for your thoughts Rossum.
It helps me better understand my husband as well as my own opinion.
I realize it’s a bit off topic and I don’t mean in any way to be argumentative.
I hope this comes out the way i intend it to.
I wonder, why does something have to be harmful to me in order for my opinion or belief to be justified?
For example;Starvation and AIDS in Africa. Human trafficking. Mass shootings.
None of these things are harmful to me. They have not even affected me or anyone I know. But, I do have a moral responsibility to humankind.
I realize I went extreme on the comparisons of gay marriage with these examples. But i’m trying to get across that things don’t necessarily have to harm us personally to take a stance.
thank you!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How does to men, or two women, getting married harm your marriage? Same sex couples have been getting married in the Netherlands since 2001. Did that have any harmful effect on your marriage? Same sex marriages have been happening in Massachusetts since 2004. Did you notice any harmful effects then. Proposition 8 in California was passed in 2008. Did you notice any beneficial effect on you marriage from that? I find it difficult to see how your particular marriage can be harmed in any specific way by same sex couples marrying.

Although I agree that civil marriage and religious marriage are two separate things, this paragraph I find to be a non-sequitur. Regardless of what you think about religious marriage, there is more at stake than whether ones own particular marriage is likely to be harmed. There are many examples of moral principles from religious traditions finding their way into civil law. The fact that they may have been inspired from religious thought does not disqualify them for inclusion into civil law, provided the people of the society agree to the principle.

The idea that homosexual acts are not to be taught to children as just as proper as reproductive sex is one such principle. Until you can get the society to agree that this was an ill-advised principle, you cannot expect society to treat homosexual unions as equivalent to opposite-sex marriage.

 

[rossum]

thank you for your thoughts Rossum.
It helps me better understand my husband as well as my own opinion.

Thank you. Helping understanding was my intention.

I realize it’s a bit off topic and I don’t mean in any way to be argumentative.
I hope this comes out the way i intend it to.
I wonder, why does something have to be harmful to me in order for my opinion or belief to be justified?

It does not have to be harmful at all. In that paragraph I was specifically commenting on the sentence in your OP:

He believes having gay people use the word marriage to explain the status of their relationship will not affect OUR marriage or other peoples marriages.

I was supporting and expanding your husband’s position. You do not have to show harm to your own marriage in order to be against same-sex marriage.

I realize I went extreme on the comparisons of gay marriage with these examples. But i’m trying to get across that things don’t necessarily have to harm us personally to take a stance.

I wasn’t offended by the comparisons, you just picked obvious examples. Your husband is right in that your own marriage is not directly affected. You are right in that you don’t need to show direct harm to yourself, or your marriage, in order to be against something.

At the very least your discussion should help you and your husband to understand each other better.

rossum

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Thank you. Helping understanding was my intention.

It does not have to be harmful at all. In that paragraph I was specifically commenting on the sentence in your OP:

I was supporting and expanding your husband’s position. You do not have to show harm to your own marriage in order to be against same-sex marriage.

I wasn’t offended by the comparisons, you just picked obvious examples. Your husband is right in that your own marriage is not directly affected. You are right in that you don’t need to show direct harm to yourself, or your marriage, in order to be against something.

At the very least your discussion should help you and your husband to understand each other better.

rossum

Incorrect, that statement.

Your arguments understate much and deny the real consequence of legalized gay “marriage”. It directly affects the marriages of people like the OP, like me and many who have children. Notwithstanding couples who contracept and those rendered infertile by advanced age, accident or pathology (that may require hysterectomy or orchiectomy for instance), marital relations generally and naturally generate children whose best interest is a concern of any forward thinking man and woman.

Legalizing gay “marriage” leads to our children being taught that homosexual relations are a-okay. You may think that such relationships are fine; we do not. You may think that gay adoption and parenting are harmless; we think they are not harmless. Harm is not limited to physical harm.

It is hypocritical when homosexuals in same sex partnerships say they only want to be left alone, to be left in peace with no interference from others. Well, you would not hear any objection from us in that regard. I, for one, would not even object to, just as an example, with you having the benefit of exemption from estate tax if your life partner pre-decease you, as what Ms. Edith Windsor successfully attained in that SC case, nor would I mind if a homosexual from the UK, for instance, obtains a U.S. a resident visa, to join his or her same sex partner in New York or California.

But, our children being taught in school that gay sex is okay, ergo, gay “marriage” is therefore okay too? No, sir. In addition to the financial benefits to the creation of a special class of same sex couples who can now legally marry, married couples who are parents have to deal with such a reality.

It is a great disservice to the community of men and women when judges and legislators set aside the obvious common social good by codifying in law a marriage other than that between a man and a woman, in the best interest of existing and potential children borne from their union.

Promoters of gay “marriage” appear to not care about children and the future of society.
,

 

[rossum]

Your arguments understate much and deny the real consequence of legalized gay “marriage”.

You disagree with same sex marriage. However, you have not produced any substantial arguments against it. If you don’t like what your children might be taught in schools then home-school them.

Legalizing gay “marriage” leads to our children being taught that homosexual relations are a-okay.

Let’s try that in a slightly different key:

Legalizing divorce leads to our children being taught that divorce is a-okay.

Divorce is legal and is contrary to Catholic teaching. Has that caused major problems? Have you explained to your children that sometimes the laws of the country are different from the laws of the Catholic Church? Did this cause them problems?

How have your children been harmed by teaching about the legality of civil divorce?

rossum

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You disagree with same sex marriage. However, you have not produced any substantial arguments against it. If you don’t like what your children might be taught in schools then home-school them.

Let’s try that in a slightly different key:

Legalizing divorce leads to our children being taught that divorce is a-okay.

Divorce is legal and is contrary to Catholic teaching. Has that caused major problems? Have you explained to your children that sometimes the laws of the country are different from the laws of the Catholic Church? Did this cause them problems?

How have your children been harmed by teaching about the legality of civil divorce?

rossum

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You disagree with same sex marriage. However, you have not produced any substantial arguments against it. If you don’t like what your children might be taught in schools then home-school them.

Let’s try that in a slightly different key:

Legalizing divorce leads to our children being taught that divorce is a-okay.

Divorce is legal and is contrary to Catholic teaching. Has that caused major problems? Have you explained to your children that sometimes the laws of the country are different from the laws of the Catholic Church? Did this cause them problems?

How have your children been harmed by teaching about the legality of civil divorce?

rossum

If you go back to threads where you participated through the months and years of your membership in this forum, substantial arguments by members including me have been made to counter yours on gay “marriage.” You just ignore them and post the same stuff, with frequently canned paragraphs that you cut and paste.

So, your solution for parents who both have to work to make ends meet is: “Sorry, one of you will have to quit your job and home school your kids.” A public school needs to honor the rights of parents without whom there would be no children to teach the generation replacing today’s adult citizens. It is fundamentally wrong when an educational system undermines the values of families that do not subscribe to the idea that gay sex and gay “marriage” are good or normal. With legal gay “marriage,” special interests of a special class trumps the general good. Legal gay “marriage” is therefore bad law, just like easy and no-fault divorce laws proved to be bad for children.

You introduced divorce in the discussion. Here in the U.S., it was not necessary to replace the fault-based system with no-fault divorce, done to unclog the courts with divorce cases, to make it easy for divorce lawyers, not really with the long term interest of the family and society in mind. Actual physical violence is legitimate grounds for divorce and always has been under the fault-based system. But divorce-on-demand usually by one party is exacting a devastating toll on our children and our social order. As a result, divorce rate was driven to near 50%.

As an aside, with much bellyaching by gay “marriage” advocates that civil laws should not be influenced by Catholic teaching, I would like to say that her teaching on marriage and divorce must be a factor in producing a difference in the outcome in this current culture of throw-away marriages or marriage lite. According to national surveys, Catholics stand out, with only 28% of the ever-married having divorced at some point, compared to more than 40% of those with no religious affiliation, 39% of Protestants and 35% of those of another religious faith. 28% is still high, however, and divorce is not something to be proud of. To help drive the Catholic divorce rate down, the Church has proactive pre-Cana and marriage enrichment programs.

Not surprisingly, following the divorce revolution is the demand for legitimized gay “marriage” by gay activists, many of whom readily acknowledge that the loosened terms as provided by no-fault divorce laws work perfectly with their objectives. Especially that their same sex sexual pairing will never ever produce children anyway. And if or when they do decide they want children, voilà, the option is there for gay adoption, the state extending equal, sometimes preferential treatment even to gay couples, as the winds are blowing these days. Just show proof of sizeable after tax spending ability and a cute baby or toddler room to the child placement supervisor.

If I get your question right, you ask how the reality and if I have explained to my children that there is legal divorce available to married couples to uncouple in this country. Since they have a few friends who are products of divorced parents, they already know that civil laws permit such liberties not consistent with Catholic teaching. We, their parents, are in our first and only marriage, may it be that way until one of us dies. I do not claim that our marriage is perfect, but we try to impart to our children with how we live (Lord knows children do not listen to their parents!) the value of a stable family life, their mother and father working with the goal of raising them to be responsible and balanced adults, with families to raise of their own one day. Should our goal not be realized somehow, it will not be because of a lack of best effort on our part as parents.

Am I concerned that this culture where the state has granted within just one generation, easy divorce, easy abortion, and now is having marriage redefined, permitting two men or two women to “marry,” with other configurations likely in the foreseeable future? As a mother, you bet I am.

Harm or damage to children are not just physical, or need be readily apparent or immediate. Which I think the original poster is inclined to believe. I hope she is able to persuade her husband to her way of thinking.
,

 

[rossum]

Harm or damage to children are not just physical, or need be readily apparent or immediate.

It does not need to be immediate, but at some point it needs to be apparent. Imaginary harm is no basis for discrimination in law.

Where is your actual evidence of harm from same sex marriage? It has been around for more than ten years now. Where is the evidence of real, as opposed to imaginary, harm?

rossum

 

[dmar198]

Imaginary harm is no basis for discrimination in law.

Post #3 pointed out that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman does not actually discriminate against anyone. Rather, giving marriage rights to same-sex couples discriminates against single people.

Also, same-sex parenting causes real spiritual harm because it sears the conscience of children. That’s the most evil thing about it and is sufficient reason not to support it.

Same-sex parenting has also been linked to higher risk of depression and suicide, higher likelihood of sexual abuse, higher rates of crime, higher rates of promiscuous sex (which indicates poor personal development in the area of sexuality), and several other disadvantages. In addition, the Douglas Allen study and the Sarantakos study link same-sex parenting to poor academic performance.

 

[rossum]

Post #3 pointed out that defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman does not actually discriminate against anyone.

This argument was used in Loving v Virginia, and the court rejected it.

Rather, giving marriage rights to same-sex couples discriminates against single people.

No single people are prevented from becoming married. The term, “marriage of convenience,” has a long history.

Also, same-sex parenting causes real spiritual harm because it sears the conscience of children. That’s the most evil thing about it and is sufficient reason not to support it.

How do you measure the searing? What scale do you use? Where are the studies of the relative searing of children’s consciences? How badly seared is the conscience of a child whose father is alcoholic and beats the child’s mother regularly? Where are your results, or are you merely stating an unsupported opinion? You are entitled to your opinion, but it is a very flimsy basis for civil law.

Same-sex parenting has also been linked to …

The Regnerus study! Don’t you realise that this has been widely debunked. Even his own Department has rejected his findings:

Like all faculty, Dr. Regnerus has the right to pursue his areas of research and express his point of view. However, Dr. Regnerus’ opinions are his own. They do not reflect the views of the Sociology Department of The University of Texas at Austin. Nor do they reflect the views of the American Sociological Association, which takes the position that the conclusions he draws from his study of gay parenting are fundamentally flawed on conceptual and methodological grounds and that findings from Dr. Regnerus’ work have been cited inappropriately in efforts to diminish the civil rights and legitimacy of LBGTQ partners and their families.

Source: Statement from the Chair Regarding Professor Regnerus.

You are relying on a “fundamentally flawed” study.

In addition, the Douglas Allen study

… which used faulty (name removed by moderator)ut data, that meant its “same sex couples with children” included a high percentage of “opposite sex couples with children who made a mistake on the census form”.

“One challenge with both of these papers is that, according to Census Bureau estimates, 40% of the reported same-sex couples in the 2000 Census were likely different-sex married couples who miscoded the sex of one of the spouses and appeared to be same-sex couples.” (See here for the Census’s own report on the errors). Gates continues: “Given that the bulk of these errors are among different-sex married couples who are substantially more likely to have children than same-sex couples, we now can assume that a substantial majority of the reported same-sex couples with children in the Census 2000 Public Use Microdata samples are likely different-sex couples with children.”

Source: NOM’s Douglas Allen’s Latest Bogus Anti-Gay Article.

the Sarantakos study

Reference please. I have seen the name given, but never an actual link to the original article.

rossum

 

[JTD_Eagle1]

How does to men, or two women, getting married harm your marriage? Same sex couples have been getting married in the Netherlands since 2001. Did that have any harmful effect on your marriage? Same sex marriages have been happening in Massachusetts since 2004. Did you notice any harmful effects then. Proposition 8 in California was passed in 2008. Did you notice any beneficial effect on you marriage from that? I find it difficult to see how your particular marriage can be harmed in any specific way by same sex couples marrying.

massresistance.org/docs/marriage/video_2013/index.html
This is a good video on how the legalization of same sex “marriage” has negatively impacted Massachussetts for the last decade. There are many instances of people around the country, such as Baronelle Stutzman, who have been sued or forced to close their business for refusal to participate in the “wedding”. This is wrong and must be stopped, as people’s first amendment right to free practice of religion is being stripped away by these laws. People should not be downgraded to second class citizens for following their religious convictions.

 

[rossum]

This is wrong and must be stopped, as people’s first amendment right to free practice of religion is being stripped away by these laws. People should not be downgraded to second class citizens for following their religious convictions.

Some Muslims are convinced that the free practice of their religion requires them to kill apostates. Freedom of religion is not an absolute freedom, it is limited by other people’s freedoms. “My freedom to swing my fist stops at the end of your nose.” The courts have decided that is you are operating a public business then you have to serve all the public. You cannot discriminate on the grounds of race etc. even if you belong to an “Aryan Nation” church.

If you want to discriminate, then you can operate as a private club, which only serves members. Private clubs are allowed to discriminate over who they allow as members.

Everyone has freedom of speech, but you are not allowed to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Freedoms are not absolute.

rossum