Conscientious objection to homosexualized marriage: "clear and emphatic opposition is a duty"

[50yroldTOBfan]

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[SMGS127]

Ummm…did you mean this to be a post in a thread? What are you asking? Also, what does “homosexualized” mean?

 

[50yroldTOBfan]

Ummm…did you mean this to be a post in a thread? What are you asking? Also, what does “homosexualized” mean?

I meant to let people know that we are obliged to oppose homosexualized marriage any way we can, since many Catholics here seem ignorant of that fact.

Homosexualized marriage means a perverted legal definition of marriage under which homosexual couples demand to be treated like they were husband and wife even though they are not.

 

[SMGS127]

I meant to let people know that we are obliged to oppose homosexualized marriage any way we can, since many Catholics here seem ignorant of that fact.

Homosexualized marriage means a perverted legal definition of marriage under which homosexual couples demand to be treated like they were husband and wife even though they are not.

So a legally married husband and wife are in a homosexualized marriage then? That sounds bizarre .

How do you mean that Catholics are “ignorant” that we must oppose same-sex marriage?

 

[Phaedra777]

So a legally married husband and wife are in a homosexualized marriage then?

No, a husband and wife constitute a heterosexual union. Partners of the same sex would be homosexual.

Yes, shockingly, Catholics define marriage as between one man and one woman.

 

[50yroldTOBfan]

So a legally married husband and wife are in a homosexualized marriage then? That sounds bizarre .

Be not confused - I meant homosexualized marriage laws, of course.

How do you mean that Catholics are “ignorant” that we must oppose same-sex marriage?

Well, many don’t know. Did YOU know this:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Well, many don’t know. Did YOU know this:

Most members of this site are well aware of our obligation, as most of us take our faith quite seriously. I will agree with you, however, that there is a significant segment of the Catholic populous that has no idea what the Church teaches on the subject, or who outright refuse to accept it, acknowledge it, or educate themselves on it.

 

[CarolNoel]

Most members of this site are well aware of our obligation, as most of us take our faith quite seriously. I will agree with you, however, that there is a significant segment of the Catholic populous that has no idea what the Church teaches on the subject, or who outright refuse to accept it, acknowledge it, or educate themselves on it.

You are right.

 

[SMGS127]

No, a husband and wife constitute a heterosexual union. Partners of the same sex would be homosexual.

Yes, shockingly, Catholics define marriage as between one man and one woman.

That would be a “homosexual” marriage. That is why I asked him what a “homosexualized” marriage was. He said:

“Homosexualized marriage means a perverted legal definition of marriage under which homosexual couples demand to be treated like they were husband and wife even though they are not.”

Well…heterosexual couples are included in that legal definition too. I’m just not a big fan of people making up words to make gay/lesbian issues sound scarier. It’s disingenuous and rude at best. Better to stick with the Truth than go that route.

Well, many don’t know. Did YOU know this:

Yes, I did, actually. I actually have never been put in a position to vote on same-sex marriage, so it’s been largely irrelevant to me. I also declined to attend my friend’s same-sex wedding, painfully, as I am pretty sure I hurt her feelings by doing so (though out of respect for me, she never said anything). I would appreciate you not assume motives of those questioning your behavior and broad statements.

I do honestly think marriage should just be completely done away with from a legal point of view. Gays & lesbians mean it in a secular sense of gaining partnership abilities (car insurance rates, joint bank accounts, mixed credit, hospital visitation, legal/medical authority, etc. etc.), religious mean it in a religious sense, and it just makes everyone mad.

Legalized universal civil unions that make no assumption of sexual activity and only speak to legal authorities [medical visitation/authority, inheritance, etc.] and financial purposes [banking/credit, etc.], which any two people could enter into, including siblings or friends or life partners/spouses, would be the way to get out of this mess. We could have separate governmental childrearing benefits, to keep that reserved for marriages, and leave the recognition of marriages up to the Church.

 

[DAML72]

I don’t accept this. I speak the truth when it is necessary, but if I were to accept this directive entirely, then I guess I would have to go around telling every cohabiting couple that what they are doing is wrong. I have a business - am I supposed to not serve cohabiting people? What if I owned a furniture store, and I supposed to not sell a bed to a gay couple or a cohabiting couple? What about a divorced person?

IMHO, think the church needs to change this directive.

 

[DAML72]

That would be a “homosexual” marriage. That is why I asked him what a “homosexualized” marriage was. He said:

Well…heterosexual couples are included in that legal definition too. I’m just not a big fan of people making up words to make gay/lesbian issues sound scarier. It’s disingenuous and rude at best. Better to stick with the Truth than go that route.

Yes, I did, actually. I actually have never been put in a position to vote on same-sex marriage, so it’s been largely irrelevant to me. I also declined to attend my friend’s same-sex wedding, painfully, as I am pretty sure I hurt her feelings by doing so (though out of respect for me, she never said anything). I would appreciate you not assume motives of those questioning your behavior and broad statements.

I do honestly think marriage should just be completely done away with from a legal point of view. Gays & lesbians mean it in a secular sense of gaining partnership abilities (car insurance rates, joint bank accounts, mixed credit, hospital visitation, legal/medical authority, etc. etc.), religious mean it in a religious sense, and it just makes everyone mad.

Legalized universal civil unions that make no assumption of sexual activity and only speak to legal authorities and partnerships (which any two people could enter into, including siblings or friends or life partners/spouses) would be the way to get out of this mess. We could have separate governmental childrearing benefits, to keep that reserved for marriages, and leave the recognition of marriages up to the Church.

Completely agree with you. Civil marriage means nothing anymore anyway. It’s time for the church to accept this and come up with a new game plan.

 

[marymary1975]

Most members of this site are well aware of our obligation, as most of us take our faith quite seriously. I will agree with you, however, that there is** a significant segment of the Catholic populous that has no idea what the Church teaches on the subject, or who outright refuse to accept it, acknowledge it, or educate themselves on it.

 

[BellsMom]

Ummm…did you mean this to be a post in a thread? What are you asking? Also, what does “homosexualized” mean?

I believe the OP received and unsatisfactory response in their previous thread so wanted to show that they were in the right. Which does lead to question, why make the previous thread at all if you already knew the answer…

 

[Phaedra777]

That would be a “homosexual” marriage. That is why I asked him what a “homosexualized” marriage was. He said:

Well…heterosexual couples are included in that legal definition too. I’m just not a big fan of people making up words to make gay/lesbian issues sound scarier. It’s disingenuous and rude at best. Better to stick with the Truth than go that route.

Yes, I did, actually. I actually have never been put in a position to vote on same-sex marriage, so it’s been largely irrelevant to me. I also declined to attend my friend’s same-sex wedding, painfully, as I am pretty sure I hurt her feelings by doing so (though out of respect for me, she never said anything). I would appreciate you not assume motives of those questioning your behavior and broad statements.

I do honestly think marriage should just be completely done away with from a legal point of view. Gays & lesbians mean it in a secular sense of gaining partnership abilities (car insurance rates, joint bank accounts, mixed credit, hospital visitation, legal/medical authority, etc. etc.), religious mean it in a religious sense, and it just makes everyone mad.

Legalized universal civil unions that make no assumption of sexual activity and only speak to legal authorities [medical visitation/authority, inheritance, etc.] and financial purposes [banking/credit, etc.], which any two people could enter into, including siblings or friends or life partners/spouses, would be the way to get out of this mess. We could have separate governmental childrearing benefits, to keep that reserved for marriages, and leave the recognition of marriages up to the Church.

For Catholics, marriage is between one man and one woman. So there can be no such thing as, “homosexual marriage”. The lame attempt to do so is referred to as “homosexualized marriage”.

 

[SMGS127]

For Catholics, marriage is between one man and one woman. So there can be no such thing as, “homosexual marriage”. The lame attempt to do so is referred to as “homosexualized marriage”.

Once again, glad to see charity hard at work at CAF!

 

[crenfro]

Hello.

I don’t mean to, but I’m having trouble with the below two sentences of yours.

Isn’t marriage a sacrament? Perhaps it can be done away with legally, but spiritually?

Perhaps I’m missing something you said in subtlety. I can be very dense sometimes, probably more times than I realize.

I do honestly think marriage should just be completely done away with from a legal point of view. Gays & lesbians mean it in a secular sense of gaining partnership abilities (car insurance rates, joint bank accounts, mixed credit, hospital visitation, legal/medical authority, etc. etc.), religious mean it in a religious sense, and it just makes everyone mad.

 

[SMGS127]

Hello.

I don’t mean to, but I’m having trouble with the below two sentences of yours.

Isn’t marriage a sacrament? Perhaps it can be done away with legally, but spiritually?

Perhaps I’m missing something you said in subtlety. I can be very dense sometimes, probably more times than I realize.

I said “from a legal point of view.” As in, the government gets out of recognizing marital or marital-like relationships and only recognizes social contracts between any two people who want to take care of each other, including relatives or anyone else.

 

[kozlosap]

For Catholics, marriage is between one man and one woman. So there can be no such thing as, “homosexual marriage”. The lame attempt to do so is referred to as “homosexualized marriage”.

I agree that making up words to suit your own view of other humans is bizarre. I do not think that poor education on what the Church teaches about gay people/unions is the real problem that faces the Church in first world countries. The problem is that people have consciences. When referring to gay people, they think about their sons and daughters or brothers and sisters who are LGBTQ, not a large nebulous group of people who are different.

 

[adrift]

Homosexualized?
Um…this is not a real word.

And…curious: If a man and a woman get married, but one of them is homosexual…do you still consider that a “homosexualized” marriage? Because one spouse is homosexual?

.

Neither was homophobic when first used.

Since homosexual means the same sex the answer to your question is that no. All marriages between opposite sexes would not be homosexualized (like that term)

 

[Phaedra777]

Once again, glad to see charity hard at work at CAF!

“Charity” for you means what??? Stating that Catholics believe that marriage is between one man and one woman is simply the truth. Yes, Catholics believe that. Clearly, you don’t. So, you’re not Catholic. We are. End of story.