Gay Marriage (A Different Perspective)

[EnchantedEve]

I am just throwing my little thought here for kicks.

I am a Catholic, and I believe that the State should not recognize marriages at all. In a different time only valid sacramental marriages i.e. Catholic marriages were recognized by the State. This was true in Portugal, Spain, Italy etc. until fairly recently.

Since we do not live in this glorious age yet, however, I do not think the State should be involved in marriage at all. The Church has traditionally taught against marriage licenses, since it implies that State may decide what is and is not a valid marriage, which only the Church has the power to do.

So I believe we should abolish marriage licenses altogether and have only contracts and wills. No homosexual marriage problem here, since the State will not have this artificially created power anyway. If they choose to proceed in private, let them, the Catholic Church will not recognize them either way. At least the government will no longer be an issue.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The fact is that in the US, marriage is a Right that has been defended in our Courts.

No. Stop spouting errors. ‘Marriage’ has never been declared (at least yet) a federal, universal right. Not in the original Constitution or Declaration, not in the U.S. Congress, not in the Supreme Court. Get your facts straight.

 

[franpax]

Yes, I cry for a secular nation! America was constructed by our Founding Fathers who knew the importance of separation between Church and State! The Church condemns homosexuals and imposes its followers to regard them as nothing but sinners who need to be caste into hell. The religious majority in the government therefore hinders the rights of gays because they take the Church’s side and not that of the law. No one is oppressing your right to free speech. A secular nation protects your right to free speech and freedom of religion! The second someone or some group tells you that you can’t say this, you can’t worship that, or you can’t marry him/her then they’re in violation of the law and I would personally fight or even die to defend your rights!

As I stated above, it’s important to remember that the separation exists for the benefit of the religious as well as for the non-religious, straights and gays, democrats and republicans. The best way to ensure freedom for all was to have the government remain as strictly neutral on religious and personal matters as possible. This is important for American Christians to understand. It may be tempting for the Church to tear down the wall between them and State now that they have a comfortable majority.What if that ever changes? What will protect your religious or personal rights in that future? What would stop a Wiccan majority from using public school teachers to coerce their children to pray to the goddess, a Muslim majority from passing Sharia laws or a Hindu majority from using public tax dollars to build monuments to Shiva? American Christians may look back and realize that they demolished the very thing that would otherwise protect them.

Once again get it through your head. When Christians claim that the barrier of Church and State only hinders their freedom of speech or religion they are wrong!!! A secular nation is designed to protect the rights of everybody and the rights of homosexuals are being oppressed!

So its a simple concept: **Stopping you from oppressing everyone else isn’t oppressing you.
**

Think About It.

Pat Robertson, a radical left wing Christian “Teaching the First Amendment”
“Let me show you precise language of the First Amendment: ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Now, if a federal judge comes in as an agent of Congress and prohibits the free exercise of religion, then he has violated the First Amendment.”

Read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. No where and at no time has the church condemned homosexuals. The person is not condemned. What is stated is that in the common sense of humankind homosexual is unnatural and so homosexual ACTS are never to be permitted. It does not even say that they are condemned, just that they are never permitted.

 

[xformer7]

It is impossible for homosexual couples to marry because they cannot engage in marital intercourse.

Should it be illegal for a heterosexual couple to marry if they cannot or will not engage in marital intercourse?

 

[tm30]

Okay, but can you explain to me HOW the institution of marriage is threatened by allowing a Gay couple their civil rights to legalized cohabitation?
Of all the things that threaten marriage I just don’t understand how Gay marriages threaten
one.

By destroying its very definition and purpose. If “marriage” is stripped of its procreative purpose, it is no longer “marriage”, but “going steady” or “longterm dating”. There is no other societal reason to “marry”.

I guess the burning question is why alternative lifestyle groups want to be declared “married”? What does the word “marriage” mean to them? If it’s just a declaration of the state, then there’s no need for them to befoul a spiritual institution for the sake of a meaningless label.

 

[tm30]

Should it be illegal for a heterosexual couple to marry if they cannot or will not engage in marital intercourse?

The Church does not allow the marriage of couples who, prior to the nuptials, choose not to have intercourse, or are physically incapable of having intercourse. If circumstances arise after the marriage takes place, the marriage is still valid, since the intent was there at the time they received the sacrament.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am just throwing my little thought here for kicks.

I am a Catholic, and I believe that the State should not recognize marriages at all. In a different time only valid sacramental marriages i.e. Catholic marriages were recognized by the State. This was true in Portugal, Spain, Italy etc. until fairly recently.

Since we do not live in this glorious age yet, however, I do not think the State should be involved in marriage at all. The Church has traditionally taught against marriage licenses, since it implies that State may decide what is and is not a valid marriage, which only the Church has the power to do.

So I believe we should abolish marriage licenses altogether and have only contracts and wills. No homosexual marriage problem here, since the State will not have this artificially created power anyway. If they choose to proceed in private, let them, the Catholic Church will not recognize them either way. At least the government will no longer be an issue.

Eve
I think the problem is under that system the government cannot differentiate children from adults which fails to work. You could legally define the mother as in charge thus refusing to acknowledge the marriage however it will not work because the father will discipline the child and the mother will ask the father to support the family regardless of the legal consequences thus the government is actually better off to acknowledge the family (Dad, Mom, and child).

 

[tm30]

Allowing SSM to be legal is in no way going to affect your marriage or anyone elses. If it does, then that marriage was doomed from the begining. My Marriage is from God, not a city clerk.

Yes it does. It demeans and destroys its sacred nature by lumping it in with a circus sideshow. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t value your marriage.

Your marriage may as well be from a city clerk if you think the dignity of the institution is worthy of being sold off to the highest bidder.

 

[ladybri77]

You argue “the conservative case” for gay marriage. That’s a wild hope which contradicts the experience of Northern Europe since gay marriage has become legalized there. Rather, the drastic weakening and decline that’s happened there since gay marriage is openly celibrated by some Eurpoean activists who consider marriage to be an instrument of patriarchal oppression. Marriage’s wounds are cheered.

We’re talking about politics, about how social policy affects our society. Yes, whatever happens in this arena has no bearing on the sacramental nature of Catholic marriage, given from God. It does have a bearing on the kind of society we live in and, more importantly, the kind of society our kids grow up inside and are bequeathed.

Also, from a spiritual point of view, if we stand by and do nothing about this issue, then we will be just as at fault as the gays who are marrying and those whom are marrying them. Will will be co-conspirators.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No. Stop spouting errors. ‘Marriage’ has never been declared (at least yet) a federal, universal right. Not in the original Constitution or Declaration, not in the U.S. Congress, not in the Supreme Court. Get your facts straight.

Try not to get frustrated please understand it is the absence of a logical argument for gay marriage which creates this need to oppose, insert accusation, imply, misrepresent, etc, etc. If he had a legitimate reason it would have been listed long ago.

There is an old saying about lawyers.
*When a lawyer has the law on his side he pounds the written laws constantly before the jury.
When a lawyer has morality on his side he pounds the morality issue constantly before the jury.
When a lawyer has nothing on his side he pounds the table constantly before the jury. *

So all you can do is watch the table take a beating

 

[xformer7]

The Church does not allow the marriage of couples who, prior to the nuptials, choose not to have intercourse, or are physically incapable of having intercourse. If circumstances arise after the marriage takes place, the marriage is still valid, since the intent was there at the time they received the sacrament.

I was not asking about sacramental marriage. The thread, I thought, was about the civil institution of marriage.

In that context, should federal or state law make it illegal for a heterosexual couple to marry if they cannot or will not engage in marital intercourse?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

By destroying its very definition and purpose. If “marriage” is stripped of its procreative purpose, it is no longer “marriage”, but “going steady” or “longterm dating”. There is no other societal reason to “marry”.

I guess the burning question is why alternative lifestyle groups want to be declared “married”? What does the word “marriage” mean to them? If it’s just a declaration of the state, then there’s no need for them to befoul a spiritual institution for the sake of a meaningless label.

First the majority supporting the issue seem to have no actual objective. Second some want marriage to publicly legitimize their relationship, this is disorder thought because it asks emotional relief from law which cannot occur. Third some support same sex marriage to obtain insurance and property alternates, this is a problem because those legal changes are designed to restitute mothers for child rearing, since gay relations do not produce children it is legal abuse to pursue that angle. If gay marriage is installed the “restitution” aspect of marriage will likely erode.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I was not asking about sacramental marriage. The thread, I thought, was about the civil institution of marriage.

In that context, should federal or state law make it illegal for a heterosexual couple to marry if they cannot or will not engage in marital intercourse?

Does that make sense? Is a woman not a woman unless she can bear children? The women are still women and will marry. The men are still men and will marry. That is the simplist why to understand the issue men will marry women regardless of the government’s opinion.

 

[tm30]

I was not asking about sacramental marriage. The thread, I thought, was about the civil institution of marriage.

In that context, should federal or state law make it illegal for a heterosexual couple to marry if they cannot or will not engage in marital intercourse?

Apologies, I misunderstood your post. You ask a good question in that context.

If the state were to sit down with each married couple and ascertain their marital intentions, then we should support a secular law to that effect. But the state doesn’t have the resources to do such a thing, which would be susceptible to deception anyhow. Such a law could never be enforced with any certainty. We do know with certainty, however, when two people of the same sex are marrying, so enforcement of that law is quite simple.

The state cannot legitimately legalize acts that violate the Natural Law. And if it does, that’s an immoral power which Catholics have an obligation to resist. This is nothing more than setting up “a beast in the Temple”.

 

[JimG]

Just one thing. Homesexuality in itself is no sin. One’s attractions to people of the same or oppose sex are morally neutral. A married woman might for example be attracted to someone who is not her husband. That could be an attraction that is hard to overcome. In any case, it is the action of doing something wrong that is sinfiul, not one’s feelings either way.

I see well I feel much better now. Thank you Jim for clearing things up for me. So what you’re saying is that if I had a girlfriend and was attracted to another woman that would be sinful or engaging in intercourse with that woman? Both would be sinful right? I am glad you replied to my post you are very encouraging.

Amy

Actually I could have stated it in more general terms. Feelings of any kind are no sin. Homosexualy consists in feeling of attraction for the opposite sex, but those feelings are not sinful, just as a married womans feelings of attraction for her coworker or even her parish priest are no sin. But actions which harm good order are sinful–adultery, fornication, sodomy.

Even aside from homosexual unions, much of the trouble that the institution of marriage findts itself in today results from living in a culture wherein people are largely governed by their feelings. Commitment, covenant, responsibility, fidelity, permanence–all these have taken a back seat to feelings. I’ve even heard wedding vows which recite the romantic notion that the couple will remain together “for as long as love shall last.”

But if “love” is nothing but a feeling, as it is often taken to be, that is no promise at all, and nothing reliable. It means the marriage will last as long as I feel good about it, and not a second longer.

The traditional vows are both from the heart and the will: to have and to hold, from this day forward, in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, until death shall tear us apart. Now that is a covenant promise, which if held firmly in the will, will also ensure that the feelings do last, but it means responsibility, commitment and never giving up.

One can have feelings for many people. One cannot marry them all. The reason is that marriage is not just a personal thing, but a means of survival of the society. Once it mecomes merely personal, the society loses its foundation and cannot stand.

 

[JimG]

Should it be illegal for a heterosexual couple to marry if they cannot or will not engage in marital intercourse?

If they cannot, the marriage is not valid. If they can but will not, the marriage is valid.

 

[greggy53]

If they cannot, the marriage is not valid. If they can but will not, the marriage is valid.

That begs the question why not? Because all Marriage is sacramental, and as such is a spiritual union between a man and women. Otherwise the church would not allow marriage between couples who have past the age of procreation. Marriage is so sacred that our Lord used it to compare his relationship with his church. His spiritual relationship.The physical union is but one aspect. I believe the Christain cannot differentiate between civil and sacramental unions unions. If the state wishes to do so that is their option. For many years the Church did not recognize civil unions, or even unions in other chruches. This is why.

 

[edwest2]

Also, from a spiritual point of view, if we stand by and do nothing about this issue, then we will be just as at fault as the gays who are marrying and those whom are marrying them. Will will be co-conspirators.

You are right. We must speak up when natural law is being violated and sin is being legalized. I urge my fellow Catholics to vote against gay marriage. Gays should be entitled to protection from law enforcement, but they should not force their beliefs on children. In Massachussets, right now, little kids are being forced by State run schools to read a gay story book.

Gay people should never be harassed or belittled.

Peace,
Ed

 

[ladybri77]

I believe the Christain cannot differentiate between civil and sacramental unions unions. If the state wishes to do so that is their option. For many years the Church did not recognize civil unions, or even unions in other chruches. This is why.

I disagree. As Catholics, we are married before God with His name being used. There is no mention of God in civil weddings. I hereby declare you married by the state of ______. I believe that is what’s said. At the same time, marriage even by the state has always been defined as a man and woman. So, even if no mention of God, it is still defined as such and always has been.

The United States being based on Judeo-Christian values still should not legitimize sin by legalizing same sex unions. As it is legal in some states and may become legal in the rest, it will never be “marriage” in the true sense of the word. God loves both people, but the marriage would never be validated in the eyes of God.

 

[JimG]

That begs the question why not? Because all Marriage is sacramental, and as such is a spiritual union between a man and women. Otherwise the church would not allow marriage between couples who have past the age of procreation. Marriage is so sacred that our Lord used it to compare his relationship with his church. His spiritual relationship.The physical union is but one aspect. I believe the Christain cannot differentiate between civil and sacramental unions unions. If the state wishes to do so that is their option. For many years the Church did not recognize civil unions, or even unions in other chruches. This is why.

First, not all marriage is sacramental. Only a valid marriage between two baptized Christians (not necessarily Catholic) is sacramental.

But the Church doesn’t recognize only sacramental unions. It recognizes any presumed valid natural marriage even if between two atheists and in a civil ceremony. Only Catholics are bound by Church law regarding marriage. But the Church does routinely recognize the marriages of non-Catholics, at least until proven invalid.

Second, marriage is not a “spiritual union” whatever that may be. If spiritual unions could be recognized as marriages, angels could marry. But as pure spirits, they cannot.

A marital union is between embodied beings of complementary sexes. Only then is marital union even possible. (Note, I did not say required, but possible.) If marital union is not possible, no marriage can take place.

It is true that in a sacramental marriage, the actual (sacramental) grace of the sacrament imparts the spiritual help needed to lead a life wherein the two become one. It is also true that marriage between a man and a woman, even a natural marriage, permits the species to continue, and provides the required support for the young. That’s no small thing, and it’s why marriage is not simply a personal matter but a social matter.