Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-sex “Marriage”

[buffalo]

No… having loving parents does that, which same-sex couples take care of just fine, just like opposite-sex couples.

Of course, having normal familial protections certainly makes it easier to do this.

I wouldn’t have a problem with it, no.

BTW - your press release looks a bit wonky to me. Besides wondering about how they came up with their “8% to 21%” number, their figure of 2% of the population being gay is lower than any estimate I’ve ever seen. Most estimates that I’m familiar with are in the range of 4% to 8%, though even that may be low, since some people are reluctant to admit to being homosexual, even in surveys.

Once I see the ideal, I’ll let you know.

If it was as simple as that then I might agree. However, God made them male and female according to his plan. Same sex parenting puts the child at a disadvantage.

Out From Under

I have offered numerous links that show it around 2%. Go find them.

 

[gearhead]

If it was as simple as that then I might agree. However, God made them male and female according to his plan. Same sex parenting puts the child at a disadvantage.

It’s an odd sort of disadvantage that’s not actually measurable.

And if you were actually concerned about putting children at a disadvantage, you wouldn’t be trying to deny the normal protections afforded to families to a whole category of children.

I have offered numerous links that show it around 2%. Go find them.

Repeating something doesn’t make it true.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s an odd sort of disadvantage that’s not actually measurable.

We fashion many laws for protections and advantages for the weak and unvoiced, that are not “actually measurable.”

It may not be “measurably” advantageous to have a male father and a female mother, but it is in fact demonstrably advantageous over time and in the history of families, cultures, societies, and personal journeys.

 

[Benadam]

quote=gearhead;

Gay people are free to live as they see fit regardless of the state of the law, so why does same-sex marriage have any bearing here?

That’s the million dollar question

If same-sex marriage is legal, gay people will be free to live as couples; they’ll also be free to be celibate. If same-sex marriage is illegal, they’re also free to live as couples or to be celibate.

Yeah

Exactly what is the difference as you see it?

One is real. 1/2 of one is a reflection.

And you’d still have that power if same-sex marriage were legalized. Its prohibition doesn’t give you any greater power in this regard.

Absolutely true. Begs again the question asked above.

Perhaps. But there’s a difference between promoting what you see as the truth and forcing others who don’t share your view to follow the truth.

excerpt from a link Buffalo provided.

Masschusetts and SSUs
Additionally, religious institutions that refuse to recognize a new state-imposed definition could be stripped of access to government programs, have their tax exemption denied and even lose the ability to solemnize civil marriages.

We need only look at Massachusetts for a preview of what to expect. There, in 2004, justices of the peace who refused to solemnize same-sex unions due to religious objections were summarily fired.

A religious belief became a firing offense.

 

[buffalo]

I

Repeating something doesn’t make it true.

Ditto to you.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

What is to stop a case based on gay precedent from being decided in favor of polygamy, bestial marriage, pedophilia? How about if the judge him/herself is an advocate?

One has to be a fool to think this will not follow. Now will these things be good or bad for society? And on what basis?

And a male insertion into another male whether adult to adult or adult to child is intrinsically evil.

If you’re going to say that, then maybe we should outlaw marriage altogether, because marriage itself is the precedent. I don’t know why opponents of gay marriage keep shooting this argument out there, it doesn’t work. It actually weakens the case.

As far as the “insertion” argument-yes, from a Catholic standpoint such “insertion” is evil even in the case of consenting adults. In the Hamburg RAPE case, the evil was the adult assaulting a child and that evil would have been the same if the child in question was male or female. The evil would have also been the same if it was an adult man raping an adult woman. RAPE is evil.

Your position is it is hypocritical to love the sinner and hate the sin?

My position is that it rarely works in practice with ANY sin. The hate for the act spills over onto the person.

 

[buffalo]

If you’re going to say that, then maybe we should outlaw marriage altogether, because marriage itself is the precedent. I don’t know why opponents of gay marriage keep shooting this argument out there, it doesn’t work. It actually weakens the case.

As far as the “insertion” argument-yes, from a Catholic standpoint such “insertion” is evil even in the case of consenting adults. In the Hamburg RAPE case, the evil was the adult assaulting a child and that evil would have been the same if the child in question was male or female. The evil would have also been the same if it was an adult man raping an adult woman. RAPE is evil.

My position is that it rarely works in practice with ANY sin. The hate for the act spills over onto the person.

Love is not tolerance

BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN****Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/authos/Sheen8.JPG  *Christian love bears evil, but  it does not tolerate it. *

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

Love is not tolerance

BISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN****Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/images/authos/Sheen8.JPG  *Christian love bears evil, but  it does not tolerate it. *

It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.
*The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth. *
It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.
*The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom. *
*Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth. *
*Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment. *
Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.

That’s all very lovely sentiment, it is an ideal that is very rarely reached in practice.

The hatred for the sin is hatred for the sinner, not just for gay people but for other sins as well. Pay attention to the language used in talking about people who commit sin, even just here on CAF. My guess is that most don’t even realize how their words sound, or what intention those words project to others. They may not even harbor the intent projected, but that doesn’t change the hurt those words cause.

 

[gearhead]

We fashion many laws for protections and advantages for the weak and unvoiced, that are not “actually measurable.”

We do? What are they?

It may not be “measurably” advantageous to have a male father and a female mother, but it is in fact demonstrably advantageous over time and in the history of families, cultures, societies, and personal journeys.

If something is demonstrable, then it is measurable in some way. Please clarify your apparent contradiction.

That’s the million dollar question

I think you may have missed my point: if same-sex marriage being legal or illegal has no effect on the final state of someone’s immortal soul, where’s your justification for banning it?

When the issue is presented, it’s usually framed as short term pain (in the form of immediate harm and suffering) for long term gain (in the form of salvation), but when we dig deeper, we see that there’s no long term gain to be had at all, even if you accept all Catholic theology as true. What remains is just short term pain with no justification.

One is real. 1/2 of one is a reflection.

I get it; you see no value in same-sex marriage. However, other people do. Why do your values get to trump theirs in issues that affect their lives?

Absolutely true.

So then, how can you justify a ban on same-sex marriage? AFAICT, prohibiting it fulfils none of the purposes that people usually give in the rhetoric for banning it.

excerpt from a link Buffalo provided.

Masschusetts and SSUs
Additionally, religious institutions that refuse to recognize a new state-imposed definition could be stripped of access to government programs, have their tax exemption denied and even lose the ability to solemnize civil marriages.

We need only look at Massachusetts for a preview of what to expect. There, in 2004, justices of the peace who refused to solemnize same-sex unions due to religious objections were summarily fired.

A religious belief became a firing offense.

No, a religious belief wasn’t a firing offense, failure to perform the duties of the job was a firing offense. One of the things that a justice of the peace does is marry people on behalf of the state; if a justice isn’t comfortable doing this, he or she is free to step down.

A hypothetical counter-example for you:

You live in an area that historically hasn’t been Catholic, but the local Catholic community has grown to the point where it finally warrants its own parish and church. Money is raised; a plot of land is bought and an architect is hired to draw up plans for the new building. You then submit the plans to the county building department. This will be the first Catholic church in the county.

The county’s Chief Building Official, who is a Protestant of the nutbar “Catholics aren’t really Christian”/“The Pope is the Antichrist” variety, is aghast. He wants absolutely no part in facilitating Catholic worship. Because of his religious objections, he refuses to review or approve the plans for the new church. And without his approval, the church can’t be built.

Should the Chief Building Official keep his job?

Should the parish be satisfied not to have a church of their own, content that religious “freedom” has been maintained for the Chief Building Official?

 

[buffalo]

That’s all very lovely sentiment, it is an ideal that is very rarely reached in practice.

The hatred for the sin is hatred for the sinner, not just for gay people but for other sins as well. Pay attention to the language used in talking about people who commit sin, even just here on CAF. My guess is that most don’t even realize how their words sound, or what intention those words project to others. They may not even harbor the intent projected, but that doesn’t change the hurt those words cause.

No - the hatred is for the act the sin. A chaste SSA is loved just as an active homosexual is. God does a much better job of it than humans I agree. One should ask why a Catholic even cares? Why do we even engage with you? Why? Because we want you to spend eternity with God.

I hate the sin. I hate the effects of the sin. I hate that it is hurting so many. There - hate hate hate. I make no apologies for hating evil and sin.

Father Corapi had a story that went something like this - those that are guilty a statements finds them like a heat seeking missile. Those in mortal sin are most sensitive to remarks. It happens to every one of us depending on our own particular sin or attachment.

 

[gearhead]

No - the hatred is for the act the sin. A chaste SSA is loved just as an active homosexual is. God does a much better job of it than humans I agree. One should ask why a Catholic even cares? Why do we even engage with you? Why? Because we want you to spend eternity with God.

… and unmarried, unrepentant, actively gay people get to spend eternity with God, but married ones do not?

 

[buffalo]

… and unmarried, unrepentant, actively gay people get to spend eternity with God, but married ones do not?

Anyone committed to the act is in mortal sin.

 

[organist1992]

I’ve not read all the posts here (too many of them), but I’ve read enough of tehm to be moved to share an observation-

I’ve spent 35 years of my life in full time music ministry for Holy Mother Church. I can’t tell you how many weddings I’ve played for during this time. Though I am unable to give exact numbers, I can tell you based on observation at my base parish that a good number of the marriages never made it past five years in length. The divorces, even the so-called “amicable” ones, were bloody affairs at best. On the other hand, I’ve also seen marital success stories, but not enough of them.

I’ve also observed several long-term gay “marriages” where homes have been purchased, children adopted, etc., I can truthfully say these relationships offer a lesson in fidelity and stability that some hetero couples should take note of. I’ve played for some of these couple’s childrens weddingfs. They are healthy heterosexual young adults who’ve grown into well grounded, well adjusted people.

This all makes me wonder (at times) if those who oppose same-sex marriageshouldn’t take a second look at what they define as marriage and whether the qualities of a healthy home (as they define it) are the sole province of heterosexual couples.

Again- these are thoughts I have.

 

[mkingdomlvr]

No - the hatred is for the act the sin. A chaste SSA is loved just as an active homosexual is. God does a much better job of it than humans I agree. One should ask why a Catholic even cares? Why do we even engage with you? Why? Because we want you to spend eternity with God.

I hate the sin. I hate the effects of the sin. I hate that it is hurting so many. There - hate hate hate. I make no apologies for hating evil and sin.

Father Corapi had a story that went something like this - those that are guilty a statements finds them like a heat seeking missile. Those in mortal sin are most sensitive to remarks. It happens to every one of us depending on our own particular sin or attachment.

When you live nearly half a century as a gay person, hearing about what an evil sinner you are, how you’re no different than a pedophile or someone who wants to sleep with their dog, and lectured about how if we wouldn’t be so “sensitive” if we weren’t such terrible sinners–then we’ll talk.

Now, understand, I don’t think you mean to be hurtful. I really think you believe that you’re acting out of “love” for us poor sinful souls. What I really believe is that straight people have no idea what their well intentioned words sound like and because they are the majority and the world pretty much revolves around them, they can’t put themselves in our shoes and think about how those comments cut.

 

[buffalo]

I’ve not read all the posts here (too many of them), but I’ve read enough of tehm to be moved to share an observation-

I’ve spent 35 years of my life in full time music ministry for Holy Mother Church. I can’t tell you how many weddings I’ve played for during this time. Though I am unable to give exact numbers, I can tell you based on observation at my base parish that a good number of the marriages never made it past five years in length. The divorces, even the so-called “amicable” ones, were bloody affairs at best. On the other hand, I’ve also seen marital success stories, but not enough of them.

I’ve also observed several long-term gay “marriages” where homes have been purchased, children adopted, etc., I can truthfully say these relationships offer a lesson in fidelity and stability that some hetero couples should take note of. I’ve played for some of these couple’s childrens weddingfs. They are healthy heterosexual young adults who’ve grown into well grounded, well adjusted people.

This all makes me wonder (at times) if those who oppose same-sex marriageshouldn’t take a second look at what they define as marriage and whether the qualities of a healthy home (as they define it) are the sole province of heterosexual couples.

Again- these are thoughts I have.

You really need to look at the homosexual statistics. You are using anecdotal evidence.

Even if that were the case it does not validate the intentional violation of God’s plan for us. What it suggests is that secular society is not preparing young adults for the marriage.

One other area to look - contraception is the Berlin Wall of marriage. Couples who practice NFP have a 95% success rate.

 

[gearhead]

Anyone committed to the act is in mortal sin.

So, really, the bit about “wanting them to spend eternity with God” isn’t actually relevant to the same-sex marriage debate, is it?

More and more, I find myself feeling like the motivation behind the anti-same-sex marriage movement isn’t “we are trying to encourage you to live what we think is a good life”, but that it’s actually “we disapprove of the way you live your life, so we’re going to punish you for it.”

 

[buffalo]

When you live nearly half a century as a gay person, hearing about what an evil sinner you are, how you’re no different than a pedophile or someone who wants to sleep with their dog, and lectured about how if we wouldn’t be so “sensitive” if we weren’t such terrible sinners–then we’ll talk.

Now, understand, I don’t think you mean to be hurtful. I really think you believe that you’re acting out of “love” for us poor sinful souls. What I really believe is that straight people have no idea what their well intentioned words sound like and because they are the majority and the world pretty much revolves around them, they can’t put themselves in our shoes and think about how those comments cut.

I want only one thing for you - to get “right” with God.

We can argue all we want, but yes you still have the feelings you do.

We must separate the personal issues from the political ones. When we are posting about effects on society it is one thing. These two get intermixed.

 

[gearhead]

What I really believe is that straight people have no idea what their well intentioned words sound like and because they are the majority and the world pretty much revolves around them, they can’t put themselves in our shoes and think about how those comments cut.

Please don’t lump all straight people in with them. I’m straight and happily married; I just recognize that if I’m going to enjoy a right myself, then I have a moral duty to defend that right for others.

 

[buffalo]

So, really, the bit about “wanting them to spend eternity with God” isn’t actually relevant to the same-sex marriage debate, is it?

More and more, I find myself feeling like the motivation behind the anti-same-sex marriage movement isn’t “we are trying to encourage you to live what we think is a good life”, but that it’s actually “we disapprove of the way you live your life, so we’re going to punish you for it.”

I derive my understanding from what a good life is from the Catholic Church which gets ts wisdom from God.

You reject it.

Punish you? for resisting your efforts to redefine marriage?

 

[gearhead]

Punish you? for resisting your efforts to redefine marriage?

You aren’t punishing me; you’re punishing same-sex couples and their children.