Well that’s just two ways of saying the same thing. I’m saying that, in the eyes of the church, a marriage by two people by a justice of the peace is just as valid as a marriage of two men by a justice of the peace. So what difference does it make what the state does?
Thanks, Constantine. I googled a church of Don Bosco in the Philippines (my brother was a Salesian priest (RIP) in Melbourne) and was impressed by Church attendance with Mass schedule as:-
Ten Masses on Sundays! Groups like Marriage Encounter, Couples for Christ etc are also flourishing. One prays for the Bishops and the faithful who support them against any government proposal to legalise divorce.
Perhaps it’s a matter of “timing” i.e. the cart before the horse. In divorce, the marriage has already occured; the Church presumes that the partners have entered willfully into the marriage with all the best intentions, and such is not sinful in the eyes of the Church. “Gay marriage” is and will never be morally permissible, yet there are forces out there pushing and pushing not only for tolerance but forced acceptance of it in our society.
The issues are different in kind. Divorce is a problem and its ready availability has been harmful to marriages, but homosexual unions attack the nature of marriage itself. It is also true that the ship of no fault divorce has long since sailed, that line has been crossed but it may still be possible to hold the line against gay “marriages”.
It may be useful to recognize the difference between that which is harmful to marriages and that which is a perversion of the concept of marriage. The latter is what the Church is opposing when she speaks out against any description of marriage other than one man and one woman.
OP for a very interesting argument.Well, of course. (actually it’s more like 50%). As a percentage of the population, gay individuals make up a very small part, so it stands to reason that there would be fewer “gay marriages” than divorces.
I think the main beef the church has with gay marriage is that
a.) people are arguing it as a good thing
b.) some want it done in church.
Whereas people see divorce as a bad thing, sometimes an unfortunate necessity, and no one expects the divorce to be blessed or anything.
Though some people do certainly enter into marriage without proper forethought, and there are a few who frivolously remarry and divorce multiple times… I do think that this is at least as much a problem as gay marriage, as it is more prevalent. Many people these days get divorces (1 in 3 was it??) - a lot more people than will be getting gay marriages.
No, the RCC is fighting the common perception of gay marriage as a good thing.Well, of course. (actually it’s more like 50%). As a percentage of the population, gay individuals make up a very small part, so it stands to reason that there would be fewer “gay marriages” than divorces.
But you seriously think that the Church is against the concept of homosexual marriage because other people think it is a good thing? Because the Church is against good things?
Indeed. Many many many fewer.
Much of the country thinks that divorce is a good thing, too. No, this is not the reason, clearly.But you seriously think that the Church is against the concept of homosexual marriage because other people think it is a good thing? Because the Church is against good things?
How “common” do you find that perception, more or less common than the public acceptance/support of legalized divorce?
I think this depends on location and history. The Catholic Church vociferously fought no-fault divorce here in the United States, and we lost. Today there are bigger fish to fry here, and given that there’s no significant socio-legal pressure to overturn our divorce statutes it would be a losing battle for the Church to take it up again and a great waste of resources. That doesn’t stop the Church from nonetheless teaching against divorce and remarriage as a social force.
Thee is no social force against it, in large part, because Catholics do not organize against it. Furthermore, being against “no fault” divorce only is hardly taking a principled stand against the breaking of the sacrament, no?
Not true. The stand is quite principled. The Church is not opposed to severing the civil bond in some cases such as abuse or adultery. A “no fault” divorce policy is directly opposed to the idea of marriage as a permanent institution.
Divorce, even before “no fault,” was granted in cases well beyond “abuse” and “adultery.” I never hear Catholics stating, openly, in public, that they will only vote for candidates who actively and openly oppose legal divorce (or even no-fault divorce).
I know very little about the Philippines and have been reading up on the country since ConstantineTG raised it as an example here. What I have learnt is that divorce is still illegal in the country because its constitution places a great emphasis on the protection of the family in society.
It also seems to be the case that the Constitutional provisions have the support of many outside of the Catholic community.
You’ve never heard a politician stand up and claim he’s going to outlaw sin? I’m shocked.
Perhaps you have a different view of the principle involved. The Church has no mandate to impose her beliefs on the state; Church law is not the same as Sharia law.
So, is the clearer public opposition to gay marriage a “double-standard” or not? That is the question here.
I disagree completely. How is divorce and remarriage not a perversion of the Catholic concept of marriage? The one husband-one wife model is completely destroyed by divorce and remarriage. In the most conservative states it takes a year to get a divorce, and after that one can immediately remarry. In the most liberal it takes no time at all. So even in the most conservative states, under civil law a person can have dozens of spouses in his or her lifetime. In the more liberal states, people can and do have multiple spouses in a single year. How is a system that allows one person to have ten or twenty (or more) spouses not a destructive perversion of the Catholic concept of marriage? How are the relative handful of gay people seeking gay marriage somehow corrupting the whole institution of marriage, while the milliions of divorces that take place every year are not?