Does a Devout Catholic Support Gay Marriage?

[Digitonomy]

Perhaps I should start a separate thread on this, but I’m puzzled when I compare divorce and gay marriage. Both are things the Church has traditionally opposed as sinful and against Natural Law. Yet you will sometimes hear Catholics (I’m talking media personalities, like Mitch Paqua) advocating civil divorce in particular situations.

How are these two approaches reconciled?

 

[JimG]

digitonomy:

Perhaps I should start a separate thread on this, but I’m puzzled when I compare divorce and gay marriage. Both are things the Church has traditionally opposed as sinful and against Natural Law. Yet you will sometimes hear Catholics (I’m talking media personalities, like Mitch Paqua) advocating civil divorce in particular situations.

How are these two approaches reconciled?

Keep in mind that according to Catholic theology, civil divorce has no effect on a valid sacramental marriage. If a marital situation is so bad–abusive, perhaps–that separation is required, the Church might recommend a civil divorce for legal and protective purposes even while acknowledging that the marriage remains valid.

On the other hand, if the marriage is truly invalid and was invalid from the beginning, a finding of nullity would necessitate a civil divorce.

 

[Digitonomy]

JimG:

Keep in mind that according to Catholic theology, civil divorce has no effect on a valid sacramental marriage.

I’m well aware of this. My point is here we have the Church at first trying to keep civil divorce illegal, but later actually recommending it in some cases.

I realize I’m mixing apples and oranges, but could there one day be some specific case where a priest would properly recommend gay marriage to someone, recognizing that it is only a civil process that has no sacramental validity or effect?

 

[JimG]

digitonomy:

I realize I’m mixing apples and oranges, but could there one day be some specific case where a priest would properly recommend gay marriage to someone, recognizing that it is only a civil process that has no sacramental validity or effect?

I don’t think so, because he would in effect be recommending an objectively sinful living arrangement. Whereas with civil divorce, separation might sometimes be either a positive good or the lesser of two evils.

(Although there are some strange scenarios that could arise if same sex marriage were legal. For example, straight business partners might elect “marriage” instead of a legal partnership agreement, finding that it would be less expensive, cost less in taxes, and solve some business partnership issues.

Or a daughter living with her elderly mother might decide to “marry” the mother for legal and tax reasons.

Or two single straight same sex roomates might “marry” solely for the tax benefits. If any two people can “marry,” the possibilities are endless.)

 

[Digitonomy]

Who says you have to live together? And even if you do, what’s sinful about having a roommate?

Your follow-up scenarios further illustrate the issue.

However, I should point out that a mother might not be able to marry her daughter in certain states, depending on applicable consanguinity laws.

 

[Lisa_N]

digitonomy:

Who says you have to live together? And even if you do, what’s sinful about having a roommate?

Your follow-up scenarios further illustrate the issue.

However, I should point out that a mother might not be able to marry her daughter in certain states, depending on applicable consanguinity laws.

But think about it Dig. IF SS marriage is allowed, the next constraints to go will be numbers (there are already polygymists waiting in the wings) and why NOT break down incestual barriers too? Once marriage is no longer deemed to be structured for procreation—homosexuals cannot procreate together–then marriage has no meaning other than as a legal contract having to do with benefits and tax returns.

One can talk about health and genetic concerns but shoot, there are health concerns with male homosexual sex, specifically. So if there are no valid reasons to prohibit two guys or gals from marrying the same reasoning would prohibit any other restrictions. You know discrimination and all that jazz

Lisa N

 

[The_Hidden_Life]

digitonomy:

Perhaps I should start a separate thread on this, but I’m puzzled when I compare divorce and gay marriage. Both are things the Church has traditionally opposed as sinful and against Natural Law. Yet you will sometimes hear Catholics (I’m talking media personalities, like Mitch Paqua) advocating civil divorce in particular situations.

How are these two approaches reconciled?

The purpose of a civil divorce is to establish (or “disestablish”?) a legal relationship, regarding property, children, income, etc.

In cases where separation of the spouses is necessary and the relationship is foreseeably irreconciliable then a civil divorce is allowed.

However, this does nothing to the sacramental relationship. Neither spouse can attempt marriage again unless an annullment is sought and approved.

I think it has become OK to get a civil divorce in certain circumstances because there is no longer adequate protection from society or family for a woman “merely” separated from her husband. Behaviors have become more extreme than in the past. To be only “separated” doesn’t have enough legal teeth to it for some spouses to protect themselves, their children and their property.

 

[Digitonomy]

Lisa N:

But think about it Dig. IF SS marriage is allowed, the next constraints to go will be numbers (there are already polygymists waiting in the wings)

When I’ve talked to supporters of gay marriage, they usually don’t see why there would be a connection to polygamy. For the life of me, I can’t see how they could overlook this obvious extension of the logic. Unless they weren’t really using logic, but just supporting gay marriage for sentimental reasons.

 

[Jermosh]

I think people think that they only answer to 1 authority. St Paul teachs that this is not correct. We answer to 2 main authorites, one is the government, the other is God. God is the Higher authority here. Just becuase some Justice of the Peace says and stamps that 2 male or 2 females are now married means nothin. And to think that civil marrieage is equlvilent to yours is a slap in the face to God. A Catholic sacramental marriage is validated by both authorities, a civil SS mariage is only validated by 1 authority. So in the end who cares? We must stop worring about he world, and worry and prepare ourselves and our families 1st and formost.

 

[Lisa_N]

digitonomy:

When I’ve talked to supporters of gay marriage, they usually don’t see why there would be a connection to polygamy. For the life of me, I can’t see how they could overlook this obvious extension of the logic. Unless they weren’t really using logic, but just supporting gay marriage for sentimental reasons.

Absolutely. There IS no logic in supporting gay marriage. There is no biological logic, no historical logic, no traditional logic, no scriptural logic, no nothing. It is in effect homosexuals wanting their SEXUAL relationship put on par with normal heterosexuals. It’s not a matter of benefits or being able to visit someone in the hospital or any number of unsupportable reasons for needing gay MARRIAGE. These reasons could be used by ANY group of people to demand “equal” treatment. And all of these objectives could be achieved through means other than demanding marriage. This isn’t merely a partnership of any two people for economic reasons such as true “civil partnerships.” They clearly want to break down the current understanding of marriage and family for no other reason than they want what they want. As you suggested, sentimental reasons.

Lisa N

 

[Steve_Andersen]

……
You obviously have a very skewed concept of the Church.

Well someone here certainly does?

BlueMit11:

There are many who use the name “Catholic” but arguably are not true Catholics because they do not agree with parts of this Truth that the Church teaches.

This all or nothing/ put up or get out approach is a terrible idea. Are you saying that there is no room in your version of the Church for people struggling with faith?

If people weren’t struggling there would arguably be no need for a Church; every one would be set.

BlueMit11:

There is a difference between “questioning” as in exploring the reasons why we believe certain things and “questioning” as in disagreeing with certain teachings.

Nonsense. Obvious if you are questioning why a certain belief is held you either don’t know or don’t agree with the reasoning.

BlueMit11:

The first is okay-in fact it is encouraged and required by any human with faculties for critical thinking. The second is disobedience.

So, you do think that thought crimes are not allowed?

To my mind all questioning is using our God given reasoning and exercising our free will.
If we have no choice then what’s the point?

BlueMit11:

Being Catholic means obedience.

No it doesn’t
Islam means submission. I’d like to think that we aren’t that fatalistic. Catholic means universal….like I said a big tent organization

What you’re asking is for someone to bet their soul but not be allowed to question the rules.

Continued on next post

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Continued from previous post

BlueMit11:

I think marriage is an awesome thing. The definition of marriage, includes a man and a woman. “Homosexual marriage” is an oxymoron.

True…they could call it a “Flarkle” or something (or just call it marriage)

BlueMit11:

Let me ask you if you think marriage between a man and two women is a great thing? It defies the basic definition of marriage.

I’ll be good and not tell the obvious joke (it’s awfully difficult when you through up softballs like that though)

I will also not give the trite reply that good old OT polygamy is still not uncommon in parts of the world
But you are right it is not part of western culture (the Romans were monogamous well before they were Catholic)

…… The civil government was founded on Judeo-Christian values and ideas. The morals which came to earth through the Church are its bedrock. Furthermore, the duty of the government is to protect the good of the people. Allowing our culture to be degraded and our values to be ripped apart is not protecting our good.

There were civil governments before there were Christians or Jews and arguments about the intent and religious feelings of the founders of the USA take up far too many web pages to go into here

The Church and the government have each been in the marriage business for a long time each for its own reasons

I object to the use of the 14th amendment to push for gay mar…err I mean Flarkle. It is clearly not an equal protection issue and the Laurence case was just bad
And I think that from a purely civil point of view a lot of the issues the proponents of Flarkle have can be addressed with a living will and a power of attorney.

I also think that the folks who pushed the issue in Massachusetts, San Francisco, and New Platz were out of their minds to pull such a stunt in an election year and the result will be nothing but bad laws.

However I think that if they can make serious legal arguments on 9th or 10th amendment grounds then maybe they should be allowed to Flarkle

I think that a long term commitment to another person is a good thing from a spiritual, economic, and civil point of view. Anything the government can do to encourage stable households is a good thing.

The morality of the issue really isn’t the State’s business.
From a practical point of view the number of persons who want to Flarkle is very small compared to the number of broken heterosexual homes. So the real danger to marriage is probably from that quarter. That’s probably a harder fight to pursue so I can see why some folks would choose to draw the line with the gays rather than the larger group.

 

[Asking]

Didnt Jesus teach separation of church and state?

We should tell them that homosexual acts are sinful, and teach them the gospel, but if they dont listen then let them get state-married if they wish.

I think Luther said once more or less, everyone has the right to choose in which way they will go to hell.

The early christian were a minority in a pagan empire with losts of immoral pratices, but they didnt impose their beliefs on the pagans.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Steve Andersen:

AFAIK the Church says it is a sin to marry someone of the same sex while it is not a sin to think that two people of the same sex could be married.

Despite what the Protestants may say the Church isn’t some Orwellian place where “thought crime” is a sin

It may not be a sin to imagine the possiblity of SSM, but it is a sin to support SSM through activism and the voting booth. Being a devout Catholic means assenting to the teachings of the Church, even those you may not understand or entirely agree with. Assent demands some kind of action–we’re called as Catholics to build a more just society. Some aspects of that involve prudential judgement, such as a minimum wage, tax laws, etc. Other aspects involve matters of principle such as abortion, euthanasia, and marriage. In the example that opened this thread, Robert Kennedy was publicly advocating for SSM. I would call that sinful.

BTW, the “judge not” and “cast the stone” lines are the first refuges of those on the side of hedonism. It’s always used to shut down any discussion of human behavior.

 

[John_Higgins]

StJeanneDArc:

It’s always used to shut down any discussion of human behavior.

Great. Then let’s have discussion, instead of “You can’t believe this 'cause the Church says so.”

John

 

[TreeHugger]

JimG:

I oppose gay marriage for the same reason I oppose allowing pedophiles or ephebophiles being allowed to marry their adolescent lovers–not because it’s against Church teaching, but because it’s bad public policy.

Marriage law is discriminatory by design. We provide certain public benefits to married couples because marriage is deemed to be beneficial to society–in the first place by raising and educating the next generation of citizens.

Are anti-counterfeiting laws unfair? After all, just because you produce thousands of fake dollars, how does that affect the real dollars I have in my wallet?

Well, it devalues them, for one thing. Produce enough counterfeits, and the real thing is of less value.

Real marriage, and real children, are important enough to society that they should be given favorable treatment uner the law. Counterfeit marriage should not be so protected.

My roommate and I were talking about this very same concept of what is the interest of the state in promoting same-sex marriage. We’re from Canada, and we’re betting our money that things are going to get interesting when polygamists start claiming that it is a human rights violation that prevents them from marrying more than one person. I certainly do not agree with polygamy, but i would think that the state would have more of an interest in allowing people to marry more than one person and produce more people than allowing same-sex marriage.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

John Higgins:

Great. Then let’s have discussion, instead of “You can’t believe this 'cause the Church says so.”

John

Um, my previous comments were discussion about the specific topic brought up by this thread–i.e. could you advocate for SSM and still call yourself a devout Catholic.

If you want more discussion about SSM you can start with the 660 entries of this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=292229#post292229.

 

[Lisa_N]

think that a long term commitment to another person is a good thing from a spiritual, economic, and civil point of view. Anything the government can do to encourage stable households is a good thing.

The morality of the issue really isn’t the State’s business.
While morality isn’t the state’s business, stability and its future citizens ARE of interest to the state. While you are correct that encouraging stable households is “a good thing” you haven’t made the giant leap to demonstrating that gay marriage addresses those issues that tend to destabilize society.

What makes for an unstable society or non-productive citizens? Having no father (better yet a biological father) in the home. Associated with a huge percentage of those on the justice system’s radar, teenage promiscuity and pregnancy, substance abuse and dropping out of school… In essence anything BUT a traditional family with a mother and father both bonded and committed to the children is associated with stable households and productive citizenery for future societies.

So tell me how a couple of men or a couple of women getting a legal document calling them “married” makes our society more stable? Further document why you believe gays, particularly gay males who are well known not to practice monogamy even IF in a “committed partnership” will suddenly become homebodies popping corn and watching TV on Saturday night instead of hitting the parties. I can’t make that leap myself. Maybe you can give me a boost.

Lisa N

 

[StJeanneDArc]

TreeHugger:

My roommate and I were talking about this very same concept of what is the interest of the state in promoting same-sex marriage. We’re from Canada, and we’re betting our money that things are going to get interesting when polygamists start claiming that it is a human rights violation that prevents them from marrying more than one person. I certainly do not agree with polygamy, but i would think that the state would have more of an interest in allowing people to marry more than one person and produce more people than allowing same-sex marriage.

Well, if you believe that children are little threats to the environment or tax-sucking liabilities, then the state would not want more of them. In that case, SSM is good, polygamy is bad.

 

[larryo]

Devout Catholics do not support “marriage” between homosexuals. Homosexual acts are an abomination in the eyes of God. True marriage can only take place between a man and a woman. Any other arrangement is a mockery of God’s law and a sure ticket to eternal damnation. To believe otherwise or to encourage such perversion does a great disservice to those who engage in homosexual acts by pretending that their behavior is tolerable. However, the ultimate judge is God Himself and He has made it abundantly clear that unrepented sin–and all homosexual acts are materially, mortally sinful–will not be tolerated.