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

[crenfro]

Hello again.

I know you said “from a legal point of view.” That’s why I wrote “Perhaps it can be done away with legally, but spiritually?” which I guess failed to imply/state what I meant. I was trying to be word-economical and I guess it didn’t work. I’m sorry for my lack of clarity.

I will try to re-phrase. I think I meant to say, as a way of making sense of what you had written to my limited understanding, that you were positing that government should simply abolish marriage though it should be upheld in all religions. In my same comment above I was also trying to say that in God’s eyes, the sacrament of marriage, given that it is a real, valid marriage, cannot be dissolved by men.

Perhaps I simply don’t understand what you’re getting at. And this is just my opinion any way.

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.

 

[SMGS127]

“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.

Actually…

A) Every Baptized or Confirmed Catholic is Catholic until they die, even if they become the biggest heretic ever on Earth.

B) I don’t support SSM, and I find it laughable that charity and opposition to SSM are seen as mutually exclusive by some people.

C) I find Catholic Truth to be sufficient as an argument, and I see no reason to degrade myself with childish name calling (homosexualist, homosexualism, homosexualized, “lame”) when I have such a wonderful argument I could actually use.

Three strikes, etc.

 

[SMGS127]

Hello again.

I know you said “from a legal point of view.” That’s why I wrote “Perhaps it can be done away with legally, but spiritually?” which I guess failed to imply/state what I meant. I was trying to be word-economical and I guess it didn’t work. I’m sorry for my lack of clarity.

I will try to re-phrase. I think I meant to say, as a way of making sense of what you had written to my limited understanding, that you were positing that government should simply abolish marriage though it should be upheld in all religions. In my same comment above I was also trying to say that in God’s eyes, the sacrament of marriage, given that it is a real, valid marriage, cannot be dissolved by men.

Perhaps I simply don’t understand what you’re getting at. And this is just my opinion any way.

Legal abolishment of civil marriage wouldn’t affect the spiritual effects of marriage. I’m just proposing getting the government out of acknowledging marriages since the government no longer agrees with the Church on what constitutes a marriage.

 

[50yroldTOBfan]

Legal abolishment of civil marriage wouldn’t affect the spiritual effects of marriage. I’m just proposing getting the government out of acknowledging marriages since the government no longer agrees with the Church on what constitutes a marriage.

You hear this idea a lot, “just abolish marriage”, but it isn’t really possible.

In reality what you would end up having to do is construct a new type of relational paradigm that does what marriage evolved to do, but you would just call it something other than marriage.

You would still have to have laws governing alimony, custody, child support, and prohibiting (or at least discouraging) men from starting families with multiple wives - oops I guess the term wife would be obsolete if we did away with marriage, but you see what I mean - we have to find some word to call the female partner in the male-female relationship, because it is a relationship central to society. The procreative principle of the relationship has to be structured and guided. Otherwise we will have what we already see in the black community, the breakdown of marriage, where women have one or two children each with a series of men, many children don’t even know who their father is, and there is a lot of poverty and misery because there is no stable family life from the earliest years and people have no social foundation.

I really think the idea of abolishing marriage is a good hearted attempt to avoid the controversy. But there are underlying reasons why marriage is important and it’s not really logically possible to ignore them.

 

[frobert]

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.

Latest polls show that Catholics favor SSM.

The legal definition of marriage is a state right as long as their definition of marriage is constitutional. Legal SSM may conflict with CC teachings, so does divorce and perhaps other things. Conflict is not synonymous with perverted.

 

[50yroldTOBfan]

50yroldTOBfan:

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.

Latest polls show that Catholics favor SSM.

The legal definition of marriage is a state right as long as their definition of marriage is constitutional. Legal SSM may conflict with CC teachings, so does divorce and perhaps other things. Conflict is not synonymous with perverted.

True, and latest polls indicate most Catholics also do not even go to Mass. The only thing such polls prove is that ignorance and apathy are the rule among Catholics, unfortunately.

The question of whether something is constitutional is, as we have seen on other issues like abortion and are seeing now on the issue of marriage, subjective. The judges have the legal expertise to basically make the constitution say whatever they think it should say.

Perverted (adj): having been corrupted or distorted from its original course, meaning, or state.

I think I used the word perfectly.