I take it that you understand why there cannot be a religious Catholic marriage? Is it not even more indefensible to try to dictate to Quakers (for example) whom they may marry based on your religious beliefs even if that opposes their beliefs?
Societies give benefits to married couples because they believe it’s important to stabilize the heterosexual union, because it’s the only relationship that begets further generations. That concern is not present with gay unions, nor any other kinds of relationships, nor individuals. Without that concern, there is no rationale for it, and thus no need to offer special benefits.
The church doesn’t just allow religious tolerance, it demands that people be tolerant of gay PEOPLE as well! What we object to is the redefinition of marriage to allow the pretense that two people of the same sex even qualify. Marriage is about more than gushy feelings between two people. It’s about a profound complementarity that literally brings life from the relationship.
But couples don’t have to be stable to beget kids. Marriage does nothing to increase the rate of conception. Indeed a man can father far more kids if he is promiscuous. Even looking at the whole population, lifelong monogamous marriage actually reduces the number of conceptions, as some fertile people end up wed for life to a sterile person.
The Church knows that gay couples are getting something they call marriage done at the civil level, but it has reasons drawn not only from religious teaching. I hope you find the following document helpful regarding why the Church teaches what it does.
Because marriage is not primarily a religious construct. Marriage is marriage is marriage. It predates all major religions. A valid marriage is a valid marriage, even between two unbaptized atheists.
I think a major reason why is because of the State’s responsibility to obey the moral law. In Catholic teaching, unless I’ve misunderstood something, the State has a responsibility to obey the moral law. And I’m pretty sure the moral law says not to help people commit sin. Therefore, unless I’ve missed something, the State cannot give any support to homosexual unions. Does that make sense?
You’re missing the point. The state gives special treatment to married couples because marriage, by it’s nature, tends towards not only creating kids, but providing them the environment they need to thrive. Hetero couples CAN decide to never have children, but it generally requires them to make special efforts to defeat the nature of the relationship (contraception, sterilization, abortion, etc.). Gay couples CAN acquire kids, but that too requires them to first defeat the nature of their relationship.
Worships the idol of will. Excellent. My will be done, and nothing can be known for certain, so, why not?
Yikes. When you put it like that, one worries how long before “In God We Trust” is revised accordingly…
Shouldn’t you at least consider the possibility that I understand it but disagree? :ehh:
And study after study shows that not only do same sex couples produce kids, but that they raise them at least as well as heterosexual couples.
So you concede that many hetero couples don’t have kids, and that many gay ones do. QED, restricting marriage to ‘hetero’ couples based in the argument that only they produce and raise kids is clearly nonsense.
Well, you are the ones demanding that gay couples ignore their nature, so you come to terms with that.
How would you stop them without insanely intrusive ‘Big Brother’ government? Do you honestly think that marriage for financial gain is particularly rare?
Besides all the sociological reasons given by others, the Church cannot condone two people living in a state of mortal sin.
Have faith. Restore the culture. Do what you can. A quote that I cannot recall who said it: “The truth must be repeated daily to counter the lies being spread among the people.” And isn’t that what we experience through the media on a regular basis in some way?
What does it matter then? The Church does not force anyone to do anything. A priest will not be pounding on my door Monday if I miss Mass on Sunday demanding anything.Shouldn’t you at least consider the possibility that I understand it but disagree? :ehh:
And study after study shows that not only do same sex couples produce kids, but that they raise them at least as well as heterosexual couples.
Indeed given the various paedophile priest scandals, the high incidence of religious people in prison, the cases of religious parents either making their children homeless or driving them to suicide attempts when they learn they are gay/bi/trans and so on, I could make a stronger case for highly religious people being unfit parents.
So you concede that many hetero couples don’t have kids, and that many gay ones do. QED, restricting marriage to ‘hetero’ couples based in the argument that only they produce and raise kids is clearly nonsense.
Also gay couples in no way have to ‘defeat the nature of their relationship’ in order to have kids. Some may have kids from previous relationships. Others may adopt. Others may have been subjected to ‘corrective rape’ as championed by the charming Catholic priest minister for ‘Ethics and Integrity’ of Uganda. Even those who resort to medical intervention are doing no more than many heterosexual couples, and are ‘defeating their nature’ far less than they would have to do in order to live as the Catholic Church would like them to - either single and celibate or in a forced and unnatural heterosexual marriage.
This argument is not only nonsensical, but none of the State’s concern. The couples have kids, and for that matter all the other situations all couples face even without kids, so denying them the same legal institution you demand for yourselves is indefensible and immoral.
Well, you are the ones demanding that gay couples ignore their nature, so you come to terms with that.
How would you stop them without insanely intrusive ‘Big Brother’ government? Do you honestly think that marriage for financial gain is particularly rare?
Nonsense. Controlled sample data is very hard to come by because gay parents have been exceedingly rare until recently. Almost all the studies you reference have been used volunteer gay couples/parents and random hetero parents. That’s rigging the sample (though perhaps not intentionally, it’s just been near impossible to locate enough gay parents by truly random sampling methods until very recently).And study after study shows that not only do same sex couples produce kids, but that they raise them at least as well as heterosexual couples.
Indeed given the various paedophile priest scandals, the high incidence of religious people in prison, the cases of religious parents either making their children homeless or driving them to suicide attempts when they learn they are gay/bi/trans and so on, I could make a stronger case for highly religious people being unfit parents.