Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[friarjamesosf]

“Natural” as in “natural law.” Nothing to do with “the law of nature” or “the law of the jungle.” This is a Catholic forum so I’d assumed people would know what I mean by the term “Natural Law.” Apparently not. Marriage is an institution of the Natural Law. Natural Law in philosophy has nothing to do with animals.

I know what you mean by the term Natural Law. I am just not quite sure when/wherein the Natural Law that it is taught that “marriage” is only between one male and one woman? Please instruct me.

 

[friarjamesosf]

Fornication is no longer illegal, does that mean people who fornicate are married?

No.

But, since you mention that fornication is not longer illegal, I was wondering how you felt about the government trying to determine whether a law of God should be allowed to be legal?

 

[jean8]

I totally agree, we will not lose ground. it may take a long time to bring the masses round but people are changing and understanding is growing we need only keep up the good fight. Here in South Africa the law is changed and if the church dosn’t want to be left behind it needs to keep up. Even as we have managed to remove Apartheid from the law we need to have onging interaction with others to remove it from peoples hearts even in the church. I feel that it is the same in the homosexuality issue. I dont believe that anyone who has had a loving (all kinds of love - family and friends) with a Homosexual can really be anti and hostile

sheena,
Rights? God has given us the right to chose how we will live on earth. God doesn’t drag anyone kicking and screaming into heaven.
If your gay, that’s your choice. a bad one , I may add. Have you read what God calls this lifestyle?
He calls this a perversion. We are all called to repent of our sins. that includes the sin of homsexuality.
You may also want to read Heb.10::26 -27. to keep sinning, is to reject the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We must all repent, daily. This is a worrisome passage.
We all have our cross to bear.

God bless,
jean8

 

[elts1956]

Wow - my head’s spinning on that one. Church Law statesin its Canons that (my paraphrase) procreation is ONE reason for marriage. BEFORE mentioning procreation, the text speaks about the good of the couple, then procreation and education of children.

As to your position that since homosexuals cannot procreate they would not be fulfilling the laws of the church - I would raise again the issue of an elderly couple, one or both beyond the age of bearing children – or – having had one or more of the body parts required for bearing children removed would also not be fulfilling the laws of the church. So, obviously, if the ability to procreate is the issue - the church has allowed itself to legally witness a lot of occassions of sin.

As far as the other groups mentioned in 1 Cortinthians 6:9, I would be interested in knowing what some of you are doing to help save their souls? There are lots of people and traits/actions mentioned there.

Okay, I jumped into the frying pan with foot in mouth. I have wondered about the church’s outlook on those heterosexual married couples who are past child bearing age, the woman anyway. So how does one prove that homosexuality is against the Natural Law? Didn’t God tell Adam to increase and multiply. Guess that’s where I got my “opinion” from. Explain please. Thanks.

 

[elts1956]

Wow - my head’s spinning on that one. Church Law statesin its Canons that (my paraphrase) procreation is ONE reason for marriage. BEFORE mentioning procreation, the text speaks about the good of the couple, then procreation and education of children.

As to your position that since homosexuals cannot procreate they would not be fulfilling the laws of the church - I would raise again the issue of an elderly couple, one or both beyond the age of bearing children – or – having had one or more of the body parts required for bearing children removed would also not be fulfilling the laws of the church. So, obviously, if the ability to procreate is the issue - the church has allowed itself to legally witness a lot of occassions of sin.

As far as the other groups mentioned in 1 Cortinthians 6:9, I would be interested in knowing what some of you are doing to help save their souls? There are lots of people and traits/actions mentioned there.

Gamera;4887209:

Fornication is no longer illegal, does that mean people who fornicate are married?

No.

But, since you mention that fornication is not longer illegal, I was wondering how you felt about the government trying to determine whether a law of God should be allowed to be legal?

Don’t we already have at least a couple of God’s laws that are still legal? The thou shalt nots?

Oh, and the people who are intimate and not married are still called fornicators, legal or not.

 

[friarjamesosf]

So most of what I’ve written has been totally ignored by the pro-same-sex-marriage folks. I hesitate to try again…but alas…

I don’t think anyone is arguing that the government cannot pass a law which proclaims the relationships between same sex couples to be semantically and “legally” the same as the relationships between opposite sexed couples, traditionally referred to as marriage. I’m pretty sure we all agree that such a bill could make it through congress.

The point of contention is whether or not such a law would be just, which is to say whether such a law would have the binding character of law. In order for this portion of the argument to be persuasive, however, folks like NoMoreGames need to acknowledge that (1) an unjust law is possible (which is a fact not admitted by legal positivists) and (2) give a brief account of the criteria for evaluating what constitutes an unjust law.

I will acknowledge that an unjust law is possible. In fact, there have been many passed that I would consider unjust. For example, I consider anything that denies that all “men” are created equal, which is a premise of our social/governmental contract.

In terms of what constitutes “an unjust law” I believe there has been an underlying issue all along this tread. We have argued significantly as to whether the Congress of the United States can pass a law that enables someone/some couple to do something that they were not previously allowed. At the same time, the basic government foundation in this country, when dealing with the rights of the people, list things that the government cannot do -which includes the establishment of law that would deny a person the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness.

So many have claimed in these many pages that gay marriage would destroy straight marriage and in some cases - the nation itself. I suppose a few of those arguments have some merit, but in reality, I seriously doubt that gay marriage would do anything more to harm the institution of marriage then what has been done by those who enjoy living in the institution of marriage.

So, on the point of your second question, I would suggest that an unjust law would be a law that would restrict someone, anyone the opportunity to seek life, liberty, and happiness up to the point in which their seeking infringes on another’s right(s).

So, the second article of the Bill of Rights protects the citizens right to keep and bear arms. However, it does not permit that individual to take the life or to threathen the life of another with that firearm. Although this right has been a significant cause of many deaths, crimes and injustices that would NOT have occurred if the criminal did not have the right to keep and bear arms, I think, unfortunately, many Americans would not approve of any law that would restrict this right. Of course, the issue of concern is the improper use of that which you can keep and bear.

So, what we have is a legal system that protects the right to bear and judges and sentences the mis-use of that right.

So maybe in thiis spirit, the government of the USA could allow any two consenting adults, who, unless otherwise legally disallowed (i.e., existing marriage, etc) allow them to be married - then whenever that marriage would cause the loss of or threat of another person’s rights, those situation could be treated exactly like cases when the right to bear arms got in the way of someone else’s rights.

I am sure many opponents to a civil law allowing gay couples to be married will say that this is all something different - something that doesn’t apply and so on. It’s not – in absolute essence, it applies directly.

The bottom line is this — one side is a means to allow someone to do something – the other side is a means to deny someone the right to do something that does not, in all, and perhaps, most cases, infringe on the rights of others.
In that context, it can be evaluated whether or not a “gay marriage law” would be within the sphere of authority of the government or whether it would be unjust, and thus not a proper exercise of government authority. I, and other folks who ascribe to the Natural Law, believe such a law would be unjust. I’ll let others deal with what is meant by “the Natural Law,” but suffice it to say that so far it is quite visibly being misunderstood.

Moreover, I have asserted that the “gay marriage law” is beyond the government’s proper regulatory role because the government does not have a recognizable interest in the subject matter. This would be an argument for the legal positivists and pure libertarians out there. I have yet to see a response that doesn’t focus exclusively on platitudes, which platitudes would seemingly also justify the “nice police.”

Now, I could also articulate some good reasons why recognizing so-called same sex marriage is harmful to traditional marriage. Among those reasons would be the widening divorce between procreation and sex which is at the root of many of the sex issues we have today. Sex-as-recreation rather than sex-as-procreation is disastrous social policy, and so-called same-sex marriage underscores the wrong side of that equation. But maybe that topic needs a post all to itself.

In any case, just wanted to put that out there.

Once again, not a single argument I’ve articulated thus far requires any manner of religious assent. ;0)

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[NoMoreGames]

If your (you’re) gay, that’s your choice. a bad one , I may add. Have you read what God calls this lifestyle?
He calls this a perversion.

God bless,
jean8

Wow. First off, I really don’t think it is a choice. Can you chose who you are attracted to? Like wise, I doubt gay people choose their attractions, especially with how much rejection is meets with.

As for it being bad to be gay, not even the church teaches that it is wrong to be gay.

 

[elvisman]

It was a sarcastic comment. If i thought it was a joke why would i waste my time trying to hold an educated debate on the topic?

I don’t understand how gay marriage would destroy society. The same number of traditional marriage would exist, gay marriage would not prevent them from forming. Society therefore has the same amount to place it’s foundation, so why would it have any more chance of crumbling than it does now?

**The point is - you can’t have homosexual marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman and a homosexual union is between two parties of the same sex.
It’s like saying that just because motor oil coming out of your water tap - that this is somehow water.

Just as a heterosexual cannot call his marriage to his wife a homosexual union - a homosexual union cannot be called a marriage.
It is what it is.

 

[NoMoreGames]

**The point is - you *can’t ***have homosexual marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman and a homosexual union is between two parties of the same sex.
**It’s like saying that just because motor **oil coming out of your water tap - that this is somehow water.

Just as a heterosexual cannot call his marriage to his wife a homosexual union - a homosexual union cannot be called a marriage.
It is what it is.

As it stands, no, they cannot. But a law would allow them to. Maybe they never could by religious standards, but governmentally they could.

Your analogy is not accurate, however. Marriage is not a physical medium as motor oil and water are.

 

[elvisman]

As it stands, no, they cannot. But a law would allow them to. Maybe they never could by religious standards, but governmentally they could.

Your analogy is not accurate, however. Marriage is not a physical medium as motor oil and water are.

It absolutely is a physical - as well as a spiritual medium.
Genesis 2:24 says:
"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one flesh."

---

**Marriage was not instituted for members of the same sex. **

 

[NoMoreGames]

It absolutely is a physical - as well as a spiritual medium.
Genesis 2:24 says:
"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one flesh."

---

Marriage was not instituted for members of the same sex.

Genesis also says a lot of things that aren’t strictly followed in current days.

I think you’re really missing the point of there being two separate institutions titled marriage: one religious, one under control of the government. Yes, the government started out with marriage being between a man and a woman, but many many laws change over time, why is this one different?

 

[Methodi]

I am living proof that there is such thing as transexual people. As for intersex, what about people with XXY and XYY chromosomes? Hermaphrodies DO exist. People with abiguous genetalia DO exist.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

You cannot deny it. It happens.

Correction: I am the exception that proves that there is no rule. There is no connection that states that all people born with a penis are socially male and all people born without a penis are socially female. I was born with the former but I am socially female. (I have had surgery to bring my physical genetalia in line with how I feel mentally)

There are absolutely children born with both sex organs. Absolutely!Anyone who thinks otherwise is misinformed, & people do not choose this, as u say, hermaphrodites do exist

 

[Methodi]

Wow. First off, I really don’t think it is a choice. Can you chose who you are attracted to? Like wise, I doubt gay people choose their attractions, especially with how much rejection is meets with.

As for it being bad to be gay, not even the church teaches that it is wrong to be gay.

Amen! The church just teaches that you cant act out a homosexual act, & I believe your right, no one chooses to be gay

 

[Methodi]

Well, reality exists independent of what people think and sanity is seeing reality as it is. It either is or isn’t… someone is right and someone is wrong. If we are to have any discussion about any issue, this has to be accepted and if you believe something to be wrong, it’d be insane by definition to support it. There’s nothing wrong with Catholics supporting what they know as truth even if other people disagree… we have freedom of religion too. We know from our religion that homosexuality is wrong based on the end of sexuality, so we don’t support is, much less condone it becoming the foundation of society.

I’ll try, however, to look at this from a natural point of view.

Humans are by nature ordered toward heterosexual relationships. One has only to look physically at the male and female to see this. There may be people born with attractions to the same sex, but still this goes against the physical, natural order as we can easily observe. Heterosexual relationships are capable of carrying on humanity, they are part of the nature of humanity. The complementarity of the sexes is not a religious idea, although it ties in. It is strictly science and human observations.

Marriage is by nature ordered toward providing a stable, life-long and exclusive relationship for carrying on humanity and raising children. This has been shown throughout history and in modern society to be the best way to continue the human race.

While there may be some (and I’d wager a very few) long-term homosexual relationships, the vast majority are not stable (which studies have shown). They certainly can’t be procreative and so must then be for pleasure. Recognizing this sort of “marriage” as a perfectly acceptable unit of society is not conducive to a healthy and well-functioning society.

How many heterosexual marriages are stable, I dont think many

 

[Methodi]

But it’s the catholic position that homosexuality is immoral, not society. All of your arguments to prevent it in this country are still religious, no matter how much you try to make it seem like they are not. It might crumble your perception of society, but not necessarily society itself, since that society is based, in part, on freedom.

And to say that gay marriages are not rooted in family and are therefore chiefly for pleasure is a rash generalization. Gay couples can be long term just like any others.

Most heterosexual marriages are for pleasure too

 

[elvisman]

Genesis also says a lot of things that aren’t strictly followed in current days.

I think you’re really missing the point of there being two separate institutions titled marriage: one religious, one under control of the government. Yes, the government started out with marriage being between a man and a woman, but many many laws change over time, why is this one different?

It would be different if the U.S. government invented or instituted marriage. It didn’t.

Marriage has been an institution of God going as far back as can be documented. It was never instituted for 2 of the same sex and I challenge anybody to prove differently.

You can change all of the laws you want, but you’ll never make an apple an orange.

 

[NoMoreGames]

**It would be different **if the U.S. government invented or instituted marriage. It didn’t.

Marriage has been an institution of God going as far back as can be documented. It was never instituted for 2 of the same sex and I challenge anybody to prove differently.

You can change all of the laws you want, but you’ll never make an apple an orange.

you are still midding the point. Let’s say the governemnt creates a social institution called Catholocism. They would have full control over exactly what their instittion involved. Even if hte governemtn changed their institution, it would not effect what we call Catholicism.

The government did not invent it, but they did from an institution of it (not necessarily the first)

Just because it has never entailed gay marriage up to this point, it doesn’t mean it never can.

Laws cannot change an apple to on orange, unless the apple and orange a concepts in which the government has control over (referring to the governmental institution of marriage, not the religious one)

I don’t think you grasp the concept that what the government does with it’s institution is not controlled be religious beliefs.

 

[elvisman]

you are still midding the point. Let’s say the governemnt creates a social institution called Catholocism. They would have full control over exactly what their instittion involved. Even if hte governemtn changed their institution, it would not effect what we call Catholicism.

The government did not invent it, but they did from an institution of it (not necessarily the first)

Just because it has never entailed gay marriage up to this point, it doesn’t mean it never can.

Laws cannot change an apple to on orange, unless the apple and orange a concepts in which the government has control over (referring to the governmental institution of marriage, not the religious one)

I don’t think you grasp the concept that what the government does with it’s institution is not controlled be religious beliefs.

No - you’re not getting it.
Marriage is not just a name brand like Pepsi or Coke. Is is what it is and nothing can change that.

This is why we seek a Constitutional Amendment - so that we can define it.

Homosexuals can continue to have Civil unions and most emplyers recognize these as legitimate for insurance purposes, so they can’t use this as an excuse anymore.**

This is all a government “marriage” is anyway - a civil union that can be broken. Marriage can’t.

 

[NoMoreGames]

This is all a government “marriage” is anyway - a civil union that can be broken. Marriage can’t.

The church actually teaches that civil divorce is acceptable if it is the only viable option. (Something I wasn’t aware of until this topic) So apparently marriage CAN be broken.

 

[elts1956]

Genesis also says a lot of things that aren’t strictly followed in current days.

I think you’re really missing the point of there being two separate institutions titled marriage: one religious, one under control of the government. Yes, the government started out with marriage being between a man and a woman, but many many laws change over time, why is this one different?

Genesis also says a lot of things that aren’t strictly followed in current days.

Why do you think this has happened? Could it be that hu/mans have decided they are greater than God and can make up their own laws? That we no longer have to listen to the Laws of God? I think that is called Pride and you know what that comes before.