Does a Devout Catholic Support Gay Marriage?

[Steve_Andersen]

Lisa N:

…

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?

For the same reasons that heterosexual couples are a stabilizing factor.

Marriage is a sacrament in the Church but from a civil point of view it is an economic partnership among other things and two can live more cheaply than one. This gives them more savings over their lifetimes, which results in a positive effect on the economy and less of a potential burden on the tax payers in the future. Also, having a partner to share the burdens protects you from periods of unemployment and/or other catastrophes of life.

IIRC People in long-lasting committed relationships tend to be happier, healthier, and live longer. They tend to stay I one place longer and get involved in their communities. I don’t think that sexual preference has any effect on these trends.

Further document why you believe gays, particularly gay males who are well known not to practice monogamy

“nonagamy” more likely

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

I would imagine that the “fine young cannibal” types of homosexual men living the stereotypical promiscuous existence aren’t the ones who would be getting married in the first place. (But even if a few act like Brittany Spears with her 12-hour long heterosexual marriage hopefully they are the exception and not the rule)

True, many men and women, straight or gay, are capable of being part of the party crowd as you say.

But we don’t stay 25 forever
Sooner or later you’ll be 35, then 45, then 55 and you know… TV and the couch starts to sound pretty good.

I had a long period of singlehood before I met the love of my life. Believe me the thrill of doing whatever I wanted wore off quickly. I can party as hardy as the next guy but I cherish those evenings on the couch with her.

 

[BlueMit11]

Steve Anderson, you are putting more focus on economic stability in society than moral stability? Do you not see how a culture can become detoriated when moral relativism becomes the norm and everyone is allowed to do things just because they want to, without regard to consideration for the whole? Do you not realize the main point, which has been made repeatedly: that marriage has a definition, and if that definition is broken, it is not marriage? This is not just a religious issue. I would not push for a law requiring everyone to follow the doctrine of the Catholic Church. But I would push for a law to outlaw murder. The thing is, SSM, along with abortion is not an “individual choice”. It affects everyone.

As far as your “thought crimes” go, if someone thinks a particular heretical view, it is just as bad as saying it, minus the public scandal. If something that the Church teaches is right, then it’s right. I don’t see how you can decisively disagree with something the Catholic Church teaches and call yourself a Catholic. As far as the people who are having trouble with teaching goes, they need to trust in the Church and realize that just because they don’t understand something doesn’t mean it’s wrong. If I hesitate to agree with something Catholic, I would hesitate to call myself Catholic. Don’t you see that particular teachings are uncompromisable truths that cannot be seperated from the name Catholic? You try to refute my statement that being Catholic means obedience, but in doing so you not only mistake the meaning of the word obedience, but you completely replace it with another word (submission). Catholic means Universal because we hold the universal, unalterable, solid Truth in our Church. That Truth, and that Church, must be obeyed, just as God must be obeyed as the all-loving, all-knowing Father that he is.

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

You agree with me, then, that “questioning” in the good sense implies exploring, because exploring entails not knowing. I think this is good. My problem, as I stated and you misunderstood, is when people don’t trust the Church and they decisively disagree with a teaching. How can you argue that these people should call themelves Catholic?

 

[Riley259]

Penny Plain:

This one does.

Not sacramental marriage, but I believe gay people should be able to marry each other if they want.

Then you’re not a devout Catholic if you believe gay people should be married, in a civil union, or even in some sort of domestic partnership in which sexual activity takes place. The Catholic church teaches that sexual activity is only reserved for an opposite-sexed couple in a sacramental marriage who is open to life - this teaching is the truth because it reflects the natural law and God’s design for marriage which in itself is a reflection of the self-giving love within the Trinity. If you don’t believe this basic and crucial teaching then you can’t label yourself as a “devout” Catholic - the two ideas are incompatible.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Riley259:

If you don’t believe this basic and crucial teaching then you can’t label yourself as a “devout” Catholic - the two ideas are incompatible.

But I just did.

Heck, I’ll do it again. I am a devout Catholic.

I was baptized in the Church. I was confirmed in the Church. I was married in the Church. I attend Mass every Sunday when possible. I receive the Eucharist regularly, and I participate in the Sacrament of Reconciliation regularly. My husband is Catholic, and my children are being raised Catholic.

And I think it is no business of mine to tell gay people that they should not be able to marry if they want.

 

[kevinfraser]

John Higgins:

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

‘Devout’ is a red herring posing as a legitimate qualifier. Catholics can’t oppose the teaching of Jesus Christ which is set out in the Bible, the Catechism, and the 2,000 year teaching of the Popes and Bishops if they want to keep following the command of Christ to proclaim the good news to all the world and make disciples of all nations. The commands of Christ aren’t suggestions, they’re commands. That’s why they’re called commands.

When you’re referring to faith and morals,

“You can’t believe this 'cause the Church says so.”

actually means

“You can’t believe this 'cause Jesus says so.”

Watch where you cast your lot. These “Devout Catholics” who play fast and loose with the reality of objective sin, mainly have a problem with the word ‘command.’ Are they worried about taking commands from Jesus?

Don’t be unclear about this. The materialistic world wants you to think objective Truth is an impossibility. Objective Truth is Jesus. But then it wants you to think God is an impossibility too.

Sin of any kind damages the soul’s ability to accept God’s grace to the degree of the seriousness of the sin. Jesus said “repent and be saved.” We “devout Catholics” call that “the good news of repentance.” That’s why I go to confession as often as I do–Jesus gives good advice.

John, please pray for all those “Devout Catholics” who oppose Jesus by using tiny pieces of what He said and claiming it’s proof He meant things He didn’t. Lawyers, (like the Pharisees were,) call that entrapment. What should we call it?

 

[BlueMit11]

And I think it is no business of mine to tell gay people that they should not be able to marry if they want.

Of course not. It’s no business of yours, either to tell people not to murder each other. Do you see what I’m getting at? It is not your business…it is your duty as a Christian. How do you respond to the repeated truth that marriage is between a man and woman, that that is built into the definition? Mind if I quote the definition of marriage, from the glossary of my Cathechism?

Marriage:* A covenant or partnership of life between a man and woman, which is order to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children.*

This truth is taught by the Church and you are disagreeing with it? If you are not, then you are agreeing that you shouldn’t try to keep people from sin by telling them the Truth. Whichever one it is, I don’t see how it’s Catholicism.

 

[Lisa_N]

Steve Andersen:

For the same reasons that heterosexual couples are a stabilizing factor.

Marriage is a sacrament in the Church but from a civil point of view it is an economic partnership among other things and two can live more cheaply than one. This gives them more savings over their lifetimes, which results in a positive effect on the economy and less of a potential burden on the tax payers in the future. Also, having a partner to share the burdens protects you from periods of unemployment and/or other catastrophes of life.

IIRC People in long-lasting committed relationships tend to be happier, healthier, and live longer. They tend to stay I one place longer and get involved in their communities. I don’t think that sexual preference has any effect on these trends.

Steve the whole problem with your argument is that you apparently see “marriage” as any group of people who want to call their relationship “marriage” even though it has little if any similarity. You see two men or two women who want to live cheaper as equivalent to a traditional marriage. It’s not equivalent in any significant way other than there are usually two people involved. It’s biologically different, it’s socially different, it’s economically different and it’s historically different. You don’t even have to dig into the Bible to understand that homosexuality is a completely different relationship than a heterosexual relationship. Why then should the state give it some sort of special blessing?

You are correct that people who have strong relationships with other DO live longer and healthier lives. Married people particularly seem to do better than singles or groups. However you cannot ASSUME that the dynamics of a male/male or female/female sexual relationship are the same and will have the same impact. You ASSUME that if two guys get married they will settle down and start nesting. Do you have any evidence? There is evidence to the contrary in those countries where homosexual marriage is allowed. It’s not the same thing Steve, no matter how much wishing would make it so.

Further I am adamantly against gay “marriage” because it dooms any child procured for the marriage to have either no father or no mother. There are AMPLE stuides demonstrating that particularly having no father in the home is devastating. So you think children should be used as an “accessory” for that smart gay couple that already has everything? I find the whole idea cruel.

If society wants to do something productive, it needs to do as much as possible to support normal, traditional male/female marriages as the best place to raise children and the most stable format for society. We don’t need to start experimenting on the next generation of children.

Lisa N

 

[BlueMit11]

You said what I wanted to say better then I could, Lisa. Well done-you are obviously open to God’s Truth. Honesty and openness I believe are the answer. If we are honest with ourselves, we can see, as others have shown, that a homosexual union cannot be marriage and that the motive behind equating the two is, plain and simple, acceptance of a sin. I’m about to go pray a rosary and then go to sleep. Know that all of you, as well as this issue, are being offered up to our Blessed Mother, the awesome example of true love and the ideal spouse.

 

[Digitonomy]

Lisa N:

You ASSUME that if two guys get married they will settle down and start nesting. Do you have any evidence? There is evidence to the contrary in those countries where homosexual marriage is allowed.

Can you provide a cite? I’d be interested in reading more on this.

 

[Penny_Plain]

BlueMit11:

Of course not. It’s no business of yours, either to tell people not to murder each other. Do you see what I’m getting at? It is not your business…it is your duty as a Christian. How do you respond to the repeated truth that marriage is between a man and woman, that that is built into the definition? Mind if I quote the definition of marriage, from the glossary of my Cathechism?

Marriage:* A covenant or partnership of life between a man and woman, which is order to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children.*

This truth is taught by the Church and you are disagreeing with it? If you are not, then you are agreeing that you shouldn’t try to keep people from sin by telling them the Truth. Whichever one it is, I don’t see how it’s Catholicism.

I have no quarrel with the Catechism’s definition of marriage as it applies to sacramental marriage.

I think that the civil society should be able to make rules that are outside those of the Catechism. I think those rules should be those that lead to the greater stability of the civil society. I think they should include the possibility of gay marriages, or gay civil unions, or whatever you want to call them.

What command did Jesus give us that is contrary to this view?

 

[Lisa_N]

digitonomy:

Can you provide a cite? I’d be interested in reading more on this.

Dig please look at past threads for cites. THe study was done in Scandanavian countries where all kinds of avante garde structures for living situations are codified including homosexual marriage. I’ve only been on this board since August and we’ve plowed this same ground at least three times. One thread had cites to studies indicating homosexual males, particularly, were not monogamous regardless of being in a long time “committed” partnership. This seemed to be true even if the gay males were “married” under that nation’s laws.

Call me sexist but males and females are DIFFERENT sexually. I believe that without the tempering effect of females who demand monogamy even heterosexual males would be more likely to stray. Put two males together and you are not going to have that effect. I’ve known a number of gay males, some of whom were in “committed” partnerships and they saw no reason that a fling would put a damper on their relationship. OK so it’s anecdotal but studies I’ve seen support the same thing.

Lesbians OTOH are women…surprise surprise, and are more likely to maintain a monogamous relationship. Further although I hear the VOICES of gay males demanding marriage, the reality is that SEVENTY PERCENT of the homosexual couples who got “married” in the small window when it was allowed in Oregon were female. I understand a large majority of homosexuals “marrying” in Mass. are also female. This is a woman thing more than a man thing.

Lisa N

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Steve Anderson, you are putting more focus on economic stability in society than moral stability?

No, I’m saying that the civil government shouldn’t be in the morality business. That is the Church’s function.

The history of theocracies on this planet (even nominally Christian ones) is less than stellar.

Listen to the news from DC and you may agree with me that those aren’t the folks to offer moral guidance.

And as for the popular vote deciding moral issues……remember that reality TV, bell bottoms , and rap music are also very popular. (So is support for abortion and the death penalty I might add)

BlueMit11:

Do you not see how a culture can become detoriated when moral relativism becomes the norm and everyone is allowed to do things just because they want to, without regard to consideration for the whole?

of course I see it. I just don’t know what the alternative is.

BlueMit11:

Do you not realize the main point, which has been made repeatedly: that marriage has a definition, and if that definition is broken, it is not marriage?

That’s why I suggested calling it a “Flarkle”
It’s not a marriage but it is ……something

BlueMit11:

This is not just a religious issue. I would not push for a law requiring everyone to follow the doctrine of the Catholic Church. But I would push for a law to outlaw murder. The thing is, SSM, along with abortion is not an “individual choice”. It affects everyone.

Abortion takes an innocent life
SSM would do no such thing
I would imagine that any homosexual couple that wants to be Flarkled is probably already living together
So Flarkling them would really change nothing other than getting the advocates to shut up already.

I’m more afraid of bad laws and bad tampering with the constitution than civilization falling because some guy wants to call himself Bob’s husband.

In 1919 the temperance movement for all the best moral reasons foisted Prohibition on the USA. The results were disastrous and we are still cleaning up the mess of the criminal gangs that era spawned.

Even more dangerous is the bad interpertation of the 14th amendment that the pro SSM crowd are pushing for.

BlueMit11:

As far as your “thought crimes” go, if someone thinks a particular heretical view, it is just as bad as saying it, minus the public scandal.

Why?

BlueMit11:

If something that the Church teaches is right, then it’s right. I don’t see how you can decisively disagree with something the Catholic Church teaches and call yourself a Catholic.

I’m not marrying a man. I’m not officiating at a “wedding”. I’m sure that homosexuals are well aware that the Church and much of society disapproves of what they do. What I think is not going to change what they feel and do.

BlueMit11:

As far as the people who are having trouble with teaching goes, … That Truth, …must be obeyed …

My point was that if doing the right thing because we choose to do it rather than because we are told to do it is a far more powerful statement of faith.

Catholics are not called to be automatons.

BlueMit11:

… My problem, as I stated and you misunderstood, is when people don’t trust the Church and they decisively disagree with a teaching. How can you argue that these people should call themelves Catholic?

If they are attempting to come to terms with the doctrines what would you call them? Dilettantes?

While it may be a goal to have every Catholic on the same page believing unquestioningly in every doctrine that is not the world as I know it. Like I said a perfect world like that wouldn’t need salvation.

All the Church can do is offer guidance through Her teachings and help through the Sacraments. The choices are ours to struggle with. That is why they call it “practicing” after all.

 

[Bill_A]

Tolerance of Homosexuality has allowed satan to move into Catholic Seminarys and churchs. It has been a wonderful thing for him helping to push Catholics out of church and keep the trouble makers in.

I dont understand how the Government has been allowed to sanction a Secular Activity with Marrieg lisceneses.

 

[JimG]

Lisa N:

Further I am adamantly against gay “marriage” because it dooms any child procured for the marriage to have either no father or no mother.

“Procured” is certainly the correct word here. By definition same sex marriage partners will not conceive children through procreation.

Again, a public policy issue relating to the (in this case adverse) welfare of children.

 

[BlueMit11]

No, I’m saying that the civil government shouldn’t be in the morality business. That is the Church’s function.

So they shouldn’t make laws against murder? What is that, other than morality?

I’m not marrying a man. I’m not officiating at a “wedding”. I’m sure that homosexuals are well aware that the Church and much of society disapproves of what they do. What I think is not going to change what they feel and do.

I’m thinking about kicking someone in the shin. It’s alright as long as I just think about it, right? God’s laws apply to the mind, to the body, and to the soul.

In 1919 the temperance movement for all the best moral reasons foisted Prohibition on the USA. The results were disastrous and we are still cleaning up the mess of the criminal gangs that era spawned.

Actually, the temperance movement was contradictory to Catholic teachings. Catholics don’t believe that alcohol is evil, and it is not true that alcohol alone will harm a society. Careless people will. And people who are careless with the definition of marriage are included.

 

[Lisa_N]

“Procured” is certainly the correct word here. By definition same sex marriage partners will not conceive children through procreation.

Again, a public policy issue relating to the (in this case adverse) welfare of children.

Absolutely and why I am so against normalizing homsexual partnerships by giving them the same legal status as traditional marriage. I breed horses and it frankly apalls me how SIMILARLY homosexuals procure children. Livestock breeders have artificial insemination, egg harvesting, embryo transfer, frozen semen, nurse mares, etc. OK we can deal with this sort of “procurement” for livestock but it bothers me to descend to this level to create a human being. I am still disgusted by a pictorial in New Yorker that included two homosexual men and “their” daughter. The child has no mother. Oh she’s got an egg donor like one of my foals who might have been conceived in a petri dish, but she has no mommy. She might even have a sperm donor if neither of the men participated in her biological conception. How do children deal with the knowledge that they were “bred” like an animal? It’s incredibly disturbing to me.

Further with every single study done demonstrating that not having a father and mother to raise the child makes them far more likely to have future problems, serious problems, why on earth would society sanction a relationship that by definition deprives children of a mother or father? Again, it’s IMO the selfish desires of the adults and the children are the collateral damage.

Lisa N

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

You know, I really don’t see what the fuss is about. Homosexuals are not going to reproduce with females anyway. They will have homosexual activity even if they can’t be married. I don’t see why people would not let them do what theh want. No one needs the Catholic Church pushing their beliefs on others. We’ve already seen what the Catholic Church has done with power over the government, and we don’t want to see it again!

 

[_veritas]

Led Zeppelin75:

You know, I really don’t see what the fuss is about. Homosexuals are not going to reproduce with females anyway. They will have homosexual activity even if they can’t be married. I don’t see why people would not let them do what theh want. No one needs the Catholic Church pushing their beliefs on others. We’ve already seen what the Catholic Church has done with power over the government, and we don’t want to see it again!

There is so much in this post I would argue against, however, I will stick to one point –

The basic problem, of course, is not that the Catholic Church is pushing it’s beliefs on the people; if it really was doing that, it would be trying to “push” the doctrines of the Trinity or the Assumption of Mary on the general population.

What the Church is “pushing” is common morality – which is something that goes beyond religion and into the common good of humanity, and which has been shared throughout human history by practically every culture and relgion.

When will the Church’s opponents get it that the Church really does not care which party leads a country, so long as the party is in line with the moral teachings of the Church – as Archbishop Chaput said (regarding the Democratic vs. Republican stances on abortion), “it is not that the Church is in line with the Republicans, it is that the Republicans happen to be in line with the Church.” The Church has no interest in legislating faith, but it does have a very keen interest in promoting common morality.

+veritas+

 

[Led_Zeppelin75]

+veritas+:

What the Church is “pushing” is common morality – which is something that goes beyond religion and into the common good of humanity, and which has been shared throughout human history by practically every culture and relgion

The problem is that not everyone hold the same morality as the Church does. Since the church pushes that morality it beliefes in that would classify as pushing their beliefs to the general public.

 

[Lisa_N]

Led Zeppelin75:

You know, I really don’t see what the fuss is about. Homosexuals are not going to reproduce with females anyway. They will have homosexual activity even if they can’t be married. I don’t see why people would not let them do what theh want. No one needs the Catholic Church pushing their beliefs on others. We’ve already seen what the Catholic Church has done with power over the government, and we don’t want to see it again!

No one has suggested that we institute the Bedroom Police and peer into people’s private lives. So they can DO what they want. Getting married isn’t an activity, it’s a state granted sanction or in the case of a church marriage, a sacrament. IOW homosexual activity is not regulated by the state provided it is between consenting adults. They don’t need to be married to live in the same house, share a bank account, eat at the same table, have their names on the same mailbox or visit each other in the hospital. So I ask you Led, what the fuss is about? Why do homosexuals want marriage when they can do what they wish without marriage?

As to the cliche of “pushing religious beliefs on others” understand that anytime the state infringes on your untrammelled rights to do whatever you want, it IS infringing a collective philosophy or morality on you. The state doesn’t have “beliefs” it has a collective code of law. There is a difference. IOW no one is pushing an intrinsically Catholic belief in saying no to homosexual marriage. No one is saying everyone needs to believe in the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception. No one is saying that everyone has to believe that it’s the body and blood of Christ at Communion. Those are BELIEFS and quite frankly cannot be imposed on anyone.

Those opposed to homosexual marriage are suggesting that society has a vested interest in stable families and all research suggests that a traditional family with father and mother raising children is the best situation for the CHILDREN. They are the ones at risk as adults experiment with various self gratifying behaviors or activities. Married people (heterosexual) are also more financially stable, more emotionally stable and tend to be healthier. They tend to put less of a burden on the state. Thus the state grants certain rights and imposes responsibilities to those seeking marriage because it is perceived there is a commensurate benefit.

There is no similar research demonstrating homosexual “marriages” produce similar results. Further there is ample research that a lack of one or the other parent is detrimental to children. Ergo the state has no demonstrated interest in granting marriage to other than a man and a woman. Given that the lack of marriage licenses has not created a great evil for homosexuals, I see no reason for the state to provide them.

Lisa N