Church's Double Standard with Gay Marriage and Divorce and Remarriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter antares1213
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benidict

**Our Priest should NEVER be forced by law to perform such unions. that would be a violation of OUR religious rights. **

Yet in Massachusetts the Catholic Church can no longer place children up for adoption because the law requires them to place in homes of homosexual partners. How does that protect the constitutional right of the Church to the free and unregulated practice of their religion (First Amendment)?
 
John

Alas, I am being discriminated against. You’ve given me the confidence to demand that I can marry all my dogs.

Trouble not your heart, mate. I have two more mongrels here ready and willing! 👍
 
Charlemagne_II said:
benidict

**Our Priest should NEVER be forced by law to perform such unions. that would be a violation of OUR religious rights. **

Yet in Massachusetts the Catholic Church can no longer place children up for adoption because the law requires them to place in homes of homosexual partners. How does that protect the constitutional right of the Church to the free and unregulated practice of their religion (First Amendment)?
Click to expand...
Someone should step up and challenge the legitimacy of such laws from a constitutional perspective. Heck, my parents were denied adoption from Catholic agencies here in Va back in the 1970s because they were not Catholic and would not raise the kid Catholic. They had to go to state social services to adopt my sister for this very reason.

I also ask what the law in Mass actually states. Does it state that the church must place children in the homes of same sex couples, or just that the church cannot use same sex as grounds on which to deny adopting to a couple. That is an important distinction to make because the latter involves an act of discrimination against the couple.
 
JohnnyReb
**
Does it state that the church must place children in the homes of same sex couples, or just that the church cannot use same sex as grounds on which to deny adopting to a couple. **

Good question. Since the Catholic adoption agency has closed down, I’d assume the agency was told there would be lawsuits filed against it if they refused to place children in same-sex homes.
 
JohnnyReb said:
Someone should step up and challenge the legitimacy of such laws from a constitutional perspective. Heck, my parents were denied adoption from Catholic agencies here in Va back in the 1970s because they were not Catholic and would not raise the kid Catholic. They had to go to state social services to adopt my sister for this very reason.

I also ask what the law in Mass actually states. Does it state that the church must place children in the homes of same sex couples, or just that the church cannot use same sex as grounds on which to deny adopting to a couple. That is an important distinction to make because the latter involves an act of discrimination against the couple.
Click to expand...
Please do not take this as criticism of Gays who are trying to adopt. But one thing I find wrong going on with the system, is Straight couples are being pushed back so that the State can run some sort of Societal scientific study. I am not for them adopting btw, but if they are, going to, they should go thru the same scrutiny, and have to wait the same amount of time as straight couples. Would this not be fair. To be fair, I will have to look up statistics to back up my claims, or perhaps someone here already has them. If so, Feel free to post them. Either its gonna be equal or its not. Its not much different than affirmative action, which I also oppose. And please dont call me a racist. I have dated many fine black women, and am currently engaged to a woman who is mixed. Chinese and Irish! 😃 Peace 🙂
 
Eugenius said:
I’m curious, exactly which “good things” do you think homosexuals are trying to “take” from the church when the rights that come with marriage are granted by the state? Secular, not religious.

Catholics seem to be more concerned about preventing people from acquiring secular financial and social rights (survivorship, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.) than they are really protecting religious Holy Matrimony.
Click to expand...
The church is not about preventing what you call “secular finacial and social rights (survivorship, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.)” all of those things are easily acheived without being married. Married and non-married people alike have been acheiveing these “rights” as you call them without any interference from the Church for years and years. Anyone can title their bank accounts JWROS–no marriage required. If you want your assets to go to someone specific–you get a will or a trust. Married couples with assets do this all the time–usually because the various states have default intestancy laws that most couples don’t want. Again no marriage needed–obvious because married couples use wills/trusts to acheive the inheritance results they desire all the time. Hospital visitation–again get a legal doc. Heck my sister has one to act for my parents in event of their incapacity. Now regarding taxes–ever heard of the marriage penalty? Its when two people get married and discover that they end up paying more in taxes as a married couple than they did when they were single–this was the norm–though recently they tried to eliminate it.

These so called “rights” are not the real reason they want their union called a “marriage”. They are just convenient and most people seem to believe that some how marriage confers all these magical financial “rights” which simply isn’t the case. Possibly if you have a large enough estate–being married may buy you some time when the first spouse dies but eventually the transfer tax will be paid.
 
Eugenius said:
Not long ago women couldn’t own property or have credit in their names. If the church advocated for a return to this type of “traditional” marriage, homosexuals wouldn’t want to be married. Problem solved! Of course I am joking about this last part, but I think you see my point. For a long time Society has been changing what it means to be married to the point where secular entitlements and religious Holiness are confused. Unfortunately the Church does nothing to clarify the difference.
Click to expand...
Whether a woman could own property, vote, have credit in their own names–had and has nothing to do with being married, getting married or the nature of marriage. These things have nothing to do with marriage. So no I don’t see your point. Having credit or not having credit does nothing to change what it means to be married–either in the secular world or the religious world. Neither does owning property.

Peace,
Mark
 
The great old songs will have to go!

“I want a guy, just like the guy
that married dear old dad!” 😉
 
^ And movie titles like The Gay Divorcee will have a whole new implication, and in some cases will eliminate the extra (feminine) “e.” :rolleyes:
 
benidict said:
Please do not take this as criticism of Gays who are trying to adopt. But one thing I find wrong going on with the system, is Straight couples are being pushed back so that the State can run some sort of Societal scientific study. I am not for them adopting btw, but if they are, going to, they should go thru the same scrutiny, and have to wait the same amount of time as straight couples. Would this not be fair. To be fair, I will have to look up statistics to back up my claims, or perhaps someone here already has them. If so, Feel free to post them. Either its gonna be equal or its not. Its not much different than affirmative action, which I also oppose. And please dont call me a racist. I have dated many fine black women, and am currently engaged to a woman who is mixed. Chinese and Irish! 😃 Peace 🙂
Click to expand...
Racist…J/K:D I agree, equal should be equal. You’ll get no argument from me about anything you just said.
 
MarkInOregon said:
The church is not about preventing what you call “secular finacial and social rights (survivorship, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.)” all of those things are easily acheived without being married. Married and non-married people alike have been acheiveing these “rights” as you call them without any interference from the Church for years and years.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that people can obtain legal documents, but why should some people have to pay for these things when others have them automatically? I can understand why this is seen as unequal taxation.
MarkInOregon said:
These so called “rights” are not the real reason they want their union called a “marriage”.
Click to expand...
When I have discussed this topic with homosexual friends these “rights” are precisely why they tell me they want to get married. I’ve never heard anyone, homosexual or heterosexual, say they want to get married because of obligations to the church. As I said in my original message there seems to be a lot of confusion in the public mind between Holy Matrimony and the secular marriage.
 
MarkInOregon said:
Whether a woman could own property, vote, have credit in their own names–had and has nothing to do with being married, getting married or the nature of marriage. These things have nothing to do with marriage. So no I don’t see your point. Having credit or not having credit does nothing to change what it means to be married–either in the secular world or the religious world.
Click to expand...
I just had this discussion today with my boss. She has always been the major breadwinner in her family, but in the early years of their marriage she could not even obtain information about the accounts she was paying without her husband’s consent. People forget that this is how traditional marriage was just 25 or 30 years ago. Women were dominated by their husbands, what was his was his and what hers was his too. I understand that this is not how Holy Matrimony is explained, but as I responded above there is a lot of confusion between Holy Matrimony and secular marriage. When people talk about “traditional marriage” it carries a lot more meaning than just the generic statement that marriage is “between a man and a woman.”
 
Eugenius said:
I just had this discussion today with my boss. She has always been the major breadwinner in her family, but in the early years of their marriage she could not even obtain information about the accounts she was paying without her husband’s consent. People forget that this is how traditional marriage was just 25 or 30 years ago. Women were dominated by their husbands, what was his was his and what hers was his too. I understand that this is not how Holy Matrimony is explained, but as I responded above there is a lot of confusion between Holy Matrimony and secular marriage. When people talk about “traditional marriage” it carries a lot more meaning than just the generic statement that marriage is “between a man and a woman.”
Click to expand...
Your example is not about how marriage has changed but how the role of women has changed in local society. The banking issue was also a local quirk in either the law or the policies of a particular bank. I know that over 50 years ago, my mother did all the banking and had full access to her and my dad’s joint accounts, as did my grandmother. The type of arrangement you describe is not “how traditional marriage was just 25 or 30 years ago” although it may have been how this woman’s own marriage was.
 
Corki said:
Your example is not about how marriage has changed but how the role of women has changed in local society.
Click to expand...
In their minds the distinction between secular and religious is not so clear-cut, especially when Biblical verses such as “women, submit to your husbands” are used to reinforce those local norms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top