Gay Marriage and Freedom of Religion

[Jon_S]

As much as the church tries to lump homosexual marriage and abortion into the same category, they are very different. Abortion involves two people, one consenting and one non consenting. Gay marriage involves two consenting adults and no loss of life.

That was not my question. You stated this:

“I agree that you should vote with your beliefs, but at the same time should not limit the actions of others because of them.”

My point is that it’s not a reasonable proposition to ask anyone to drop their convictions based on your type of argument. Give me some good solid reasons why your line of thinking is supposedly superior to mine, and we’ll talk.

There are many types of relationships that happen between “consenting adults” but I hardly see any reason for the Government to sponsor those, either.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Natural law is not purely religious, no, but when you use it as a defense to forbid two men to marry, it becomes one.

(1) Natural law is not the only argument against gay marriage, just one component of several component arguments.

(2) Natural law is actually woven into our secular law. Has been true historically; continues to be true today.

(3) Even the most “secular” law is built from a combination of reason, logic, and human experience. Since the institution of democracy, law is not arbitrary or monarchical. However, people tend to forget that many laws even during reigns of medieval monarchs, also incorporated these essential elements of logic, reason, and human experience, within a framework of justice. Note, however, that justice must be seen as comprehensive for all parties involved, and for society as a whole. That latter fact is the basis for the following argument, which i.m.o., is the strongest argument against gay marriage…

(4) The common good of society. This has already been addressed by others. Gay marriage does not promote the common good. It promotes an individual good or desire (as opposed to individual rights). The notion of individual justice, individual rights, can be and (i.m.o.)should be resolved by granting equal privileges to gay couples (that heterosexually married couples have) without the title of marriage, when two people of the same gender seek to associate with each other.

I think that same-sex couples should have inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, tax deduction rights, insurance rights, bereavement rights, etc.

However, the way our society is structured, the term marriage always implies the privilege of parenthood. And gay parents do not promote the common good of society. This has been discussed on other threads, so I’d rather not hijack this thread to discuss gay parents.

Secondarily, the term marriage has religious connotations and implications, regardless of its civil origin. It has evolved to signify religious approval, religious status.

If civilly-united gay couples wish to have their union blessed and given additional religious status, let them seek out such religions which will provide that, and quit demanding that the Catholic Church change to accommodate them.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

We could argue with them, until the proverbial Cows come home. If, however, he does not follow the premises of Natural Law on which the Catholic Church is morally moored, then they will need to live with the simple fact that Christ, through the mouthpiece of His Church, declares, infallibly, that homosexual activity is objectively disordered and grave matter. Interestingly, though, adultery is also entered by two willing parties consentually. Should we then classify it as less morally reprehensible.

Trying to put degrees on mortal sin is like saying there are degrees to physical death. It just cannot be done. If one is physical death and the other spiritual death, i.e., total loss of sanctifying grace, physical death is not as bad so to speak, as this we will all undergo. I do not wish spiritual death on anyone as its consequences are too grave. Only the individual involved can chose this due to free will.

 

[eichenb2]

That was not my question. You stated this:

“I agree that you should vote with your beliefs, but at the same time should not limit the actions of others because of them.”

My point is that it’s not a reasonable proposition to ask anyone to drop their convictions based on your type of argument. Give me some good solid reasons why your line of thinking is supposedly superior to mine, and we’ll talk.

There are many types of relationships that happen between “consenting adults” but I hardly see any reason for the Government to sponsor those, either.

Natural Law is the answer to your question!
Also, why do homosexual marriage supporters always suggest that polygamy is not a next logical step? If I were a polygamist, I would argue that they are separate marriage contracts and that the state has no compelling right to stop my from having more than one wife.

 

[eichenb2]

(1) Natural law is not the only argument against gay marriage, just one component of several component arguments.

(2) Natural law is actually woven into our secular law. Has been true historically; continues to be true today.

(3) Even the most “secular” law is built from a combination of reason, logic, and human experience. Since the institution of democracy, law is not arbitrary or monarchical. However, people tend to forget that many laws even during reigns of medieval monarchs, also incorporated these essential elements of logic, reason, and human experience, within a framework of justice. Note, however, that justice must be seen as comprehensive for all parties involved, and for society as a whole. That latter fact is the basis for the following argument, which i.m.o., is the strongest argument against gay marriage…

(4) The common good of society. This has already been addressed by others. Gay marriage does not promote the common good. It promotes an individual good or desire (as opposed to individual rights). The notion of individual justice, individual rights, can be and (i.m.o.)should be resolved by granting equal privileges to gay couples (that heterosexually married couples have) without the title of marriage, when two people of the same gender seek to associate with each other.

I think that same-sex couples should have inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, tax deduction rights, insurance rights, bereavement rights, etc.

However, the way our society is structured, the term marriage always implies the privilege of parenthood. And gay parents do not promote the common good of society. This has been discussed on other threads, so I’d rather not hijack this thread to discuss gay parents.

Secondarily, the term marriage has religious connotations and implications, regardless of its civil origin. It has evolved to signify religious approval, religious status.

If civilly-united gay couples wish to have their union blessed and given additional religious status, let them seek out such religions which will provide that, and quit demanding that the Catholic Church change to accommodate them.

I think the US government ought to end the discussion of gay marriage by having a national referendum and if most American say they think gay marriage should be banned, then it should.

 

[eichenb2]

(1) Natural law is not the only argument against gay marriage, just one component of several component arguments.

(2) Natural law is actually woven into our secular law. Has been true historically; continues to be true today.

(3) Even the most “secular” law is built from a combination of reason, logic, and human experience. Since the institution of democracy, law is not arbitrary or monarchical. However, people tend to forget that many laws even during reigns of medieval monarchs, also incorporated these essential elements of logic, reason, and human experience, within a framework of justice. Note, however, that justice must be seen as comprehensive for all parties involved, and for society as a whole. That latter fact is the basis for the following argument, which i.m.o., is the strongest argument against gay marriage…

(4) The common good of society. This has already been addressed by others. Gay marriage does not promote the common good. It promotes an individual good or desire (as opposed to individual rights). The notion of individual justice, individual rights, can be and (i.m.o.)should be resolved by granting equal privileges to gay couples (that heterosexually married couples have) without the title of marriage, when two people of the same gender seek to associate with each other.

I think that same-sex couples should have inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, tax deduction rights, insurance rights, bereavement rights, etc.

However, the way our society is structured, the term marriage always implies the privilege of parenthood. And gay parents do not promote the common good of society. This has been discussed on other threads, so I’d rather not hijack this thread to discuss gay parents.

Secondarily, the term marriage has religious connotations and implications, regardless of its civil origin. It has evolved to signify religious approval, religious status.

If civilly-united gay couples wish to have their union blessed and given additional religious status, let them seek out such religions which will provide that, and quit demanding that the Catholic Church change to accommodate them.

Remember this, though, the devil (objective evil) will never come into the room and sit quietly. Once gay marriage becomes entrenched, they will try to pass legislation that condemns any anti-homosexual talk as “hate speech”. See Colorado senate bill 200! The gay rights movement would attempt to censor St. Paul and Christ himself if they say that homosexual activity is wrong.

 

[NoMoreGames]

It continues to amaze me how man believes his secular law trumps Gods law, natural or otherwise. It will all be known in the end.

Who says that’s what I’m even saying? Being a deacon, you of all people should know that forcing your faith on someone does not mean they accept it. Same thing here, our faith should not be forced onto society, it will not fix anything.

Are you saying we have forced abortion? I don’t think so.

Not even close. That statement meant that in abortion, the child doesn’t have a say, much like in murder (since it is). Murder and gay marriage are not the same. You read my statement the wrong way.

My point is that it’s not a reasonable proposition to ask anyone to drop their convictions based on your type of argument. Give me some good solid reasons why your line of thinking is supposedly superior to mine, and we’ll talk.

There are many types of relationships that happen between “consenting adults” but I hardly see any reason for the Government to sponsor those, either.

You’re being too vague for me to answer. What do you mean my type of argument? That it is wrong to force beliefs on someone? If you explain what you mean better I’ll be able to answer.

I think that same-sex couples should have inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, tax deduction rights, insurance rights, bereavement rights, etc.

However, the way our society is structured, the term marriage always implies the privilege of parenthood. And gay parents do not promote the common good of society. This has been discussed on other threads, so I’d rather not hijack this thread to discuss gay parents.

Secondarily, the term marriage has religious connotations and implications, regardless of its civil origin. It has evolved to signify religious approval, religious status.

If civilly-united gay couples wish to have their union blessed and given additional religious status, let them seek out such religions which will provide that, and quit demanding that the Catholic Church change to accommodate them.

Your numbered points didn’t shows natural law as supporting either side, so I won’t comment on them. As far as marriage meaning parenthood, just because they have been connected up to this point doesn’t mean they have to, nor does it mean they will be disconnected with the additional of gay marriage (see sterile couples and adoption) Gay couples aren’t demanding the Catholic Church accept them, I think they’d rather just have the church stop trying to prevent them in the first place.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Remember this, though, the devil (objective evil) will never come into the room and sit quietly. Once gay marriage becomes entrenched, they will try to pass legislation that condemns any anti-homosexual talk as “hate speech”. See Colorado senate bill 200! The gay rights movement would attempt to censor St. Paul and Christ himself if they say that homosexual activity is wrong.

These people only represent a minority of a minority. That shouldn’t be a reason to discriminate against an entire group of people, they are all individuals. Should the few african americans that are in gangs change the laws for all african americans?

 

[eichenb2]

Who says that’s what I’m even saying? Being a deacon, you of all people should know that forcing your faith on someone does not mean they accept it. Same thing here, our faith should not be forced onto society, it will not fix anything.

Not even close. That statement meant that in abortion, the child doesn’t have a say, much like in murder (since it is). Murder and gay marriage are not the same. You read my statement the wrong way.

You’re being too vague for me to answer. What do you mean my type of argument? That it is wrong to force beliefs on someone? If you explain what you mean better I’ll be able to answer.

Your numbered points didn’t shows natural law as supporting either side, so I won’t comment on them. As far as marriage meaning parenthood, just because they have been connected up to this point doesn’t mean they have to, nor does it mean they will be disconnected with the additional of gay marriage (see sterile couples and adoption) Gay couples aren’t demanding the Catholic Church accept them, I think they’d rather just have the church stop trying to prevent them in the first place.

I as a potential Catholic, a fervent admirer of St. Thomas Aquinas’ work, and an ardent Natural Law theory adherent will oppose at every level the introduction of “gay marriage” into legality. It is objectively immoral, based on Natural Law and the Church’s teaching. I will no more support “gay marriage” than I would adultery. Consent has nothing to do with it. Everyone has disordered thoughts and desires. Why should I, in a democratic society, not oppose values that I believe are objectively wrong.
I pray that people who have homosexual attraction can bare with patience these disordered desires. Likewise, I pray that people who fight against disordered heterosexual lust can find patience to persevere. God Law is immutable because it is written on our conscience.

 

[Elizabeth502]

As far as marriage meaning parenthood, just because they have been connected up to this point doesn’t mean they have to, …

***Wrong. New law is built on pre-existing law. New rights are based on previous rights, and the common perceptions of such rights, including what has come to be practiced, as long as competing existing rights are not violated. That is how case law has developed in this country and continues to develop.

---

Gay couples aren’t demanding the Catholic Church accept them, I think they’d rather just have the church stop trying to prevent them in the first place.

(1) Many gay couples are quite literally demanding acceptance, even if most are not.
(2) If secular society grants them the term “marriage” through some national act or Supreme Court decision, count on pressure being applied to the Church to do likewise.

 

[NoMoreGames]

I as a potential Catholic, a fervent admirer of St. Thomas Aquinas’ work, and an ardent Natural Law theory adherent will oppose at every level the introduction of “gay marriage” into legality. It is objectively immoral, based on Natural Law and the Church’s teaching. I will no more support “gay marriage” than I would adultery. Consent has nothing to do with it. Everyone has disordered thoughts and desires. Why should I, in a democratic society, not oppose values that I believe are objectively wrong.
I pray that people who have homosexual attraction can bare with patience these disordered desires. Likewise, I pray that people who fight against disordered heterosexual lust can find patience to persevere. God Law is immutable because it is written on our conscience.

Welcome to the faith, make sure you keep you passion this strong for the rest of your life

That being said, it is merely your opinion that it is a disordered heterosexual lust, just as much as it is my opinion that it is not. However, my boyfriend and I don’t have sex, and we have a more healthy loving relationship than many of the straight friends (don’t feel compelled to comment on this, i don’t want to turn the focus of this onto me again, just stating a fact) If you were referring to homosexuality and disordered lust as two different things, ignore this.

The difference is that there are no laws against adultery. I’m not trying to say adultery is good in anyway, but I don’t feel the two are synonymous. I take it you would support laws that demanded a couple be faithful, regardless of their personal beliefs?

 

[whyallthefuss]

Exactly! Gay marriage cannot produce or give life! This is the reason why Catholics are opposed to it. Not to mention the fact that gay activities are gravely sinful.

When you say gay marriage cannot give life I have to disagree. Obviously it can’t create a living being but to the people in the relationship and the people around them it does give life.
For example, if two separate men are gay, they will not be happy unless they can express themselves as a gay person. Together however, they will be able to enjoy the life that they have and in turn positively effect the people around them. But most importantly there is the life given through adoption. Almost 30% of orphans in North America are adopted by gay couples. They may not create life, but they can help give life to the abandoned children created through “natural” relationships.

 

[eichenb2]

(1) Many gay couples are quite literally demanding acceptance, even if most are not.
(2) If secular society grants them the term “marriage” through some national act or Supreme Court decision, count on pressure being applied to the Church to do likewise.

Totally Agree! As a potential Catholic, I fear that the Catholic Church will be forced to accept this time of moral relativism. It is one thing to say “love the sinner, hate the sin”, it is entirely another to say “love the sinner, because it is not really sin”.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Wrong. New law is built on pre-existing law. New rights are based on previous rights, and the common perceptions of such rights, including what has come to be practiced, as long as competing existing rights are not violated. That is how case law has developed in this country and continues to develop.
(1) Many gay couples are quite literally demanding acceptance, even if most are not.
(2) If secular society grants them the term “marriage” through some national act or Supreme Court decision, count on pressure being applied to the Church to do likewise.

I agree that new is built on old, indeed that is the only way to progress, but there is nothing wrong with changing old as time goes on. Look at how much the Mass has transformed and how much more dynamic it has become just in our lifetime in order to stay up to date (at least at the parish i belong to, but the pastor said it was a nation wide change)

If you even admit that most likely the mojority are not demanding acceptance, why should tehy be help accountalbe to the actions of those that are?

The difference is that there is a separation of church and state. The state exists for the citizens, where as members exist to serve the church.

This topic was not about the common view of the morality of homosexual marriage, but about on what grounds it is denied in the states.

 

[eichenb2]

Welcome to the faith, make sure you keep you passion this strong for the rest of your life

That being said, it is merely your opinion that it is a disordered heterosexual lust, just as much as it is my opinion that it is not. However, my boyfriend and I don’t have sex, and we have a more healthy loving relationship than many of the straight friends (don’t feel compelled to comment on this, i don’t want to turn the focus of this onto me again, just stating a fact) If you were referring to homosexuality and disordered lust as two different things, ignore this.

The difference is that there are no laws against adultery. I’m not trying to say adultery is good in anyway, but I don’t feel the two are synonymous. I take it you would support laws that demanded a couple be faithful, regardless of their personal beliefs?

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Not just my opinion

 

[06convert]

Being legally bound by man’s laws is called a “civil union”. Being legally bound by God’s laws is called “marriage”.

God designed marriage to be between one man and one woman until death do they part.

Changing the definition of marriage is telling me I have to change my religious beliefs which a perversion of freedom.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Not just my opinion

Ok, the churches opinion, but the point is still the same. The word of God has been handled by corruption for thousands of years. Catholics argue that Protestant truth is flawed because it was created by man, but think of how much longer Catholic ideals have been handled by man.

It is my honest belief that if you love God and love others (honest, genuine love) then you are leaving as Jesus did.

 

[eichenb2]

When you say gay marriage cannot give life I have to disagree. Obviously it can’t create a living being but to the people in the relationship and the people around them it does give life.
For example, if two separate men are gay, they will not be happy unless they can express themselves as a gay person. Together however, they will be able to enjoy the life that they have and in turn positively effect the people around them. But most importantly there is the life given through adoption. Almost 30% of orphans in North America are adopted by gay couples. They may not create life, but they can help give life to the abandoned children created through “natural” relationships.

Have to love gay couples adopting kids and confusing them more than adolescence already does. It is no wonder, with this kind of moral decay, that Europe is becoming Eurabia. America will follow.

 

[NoMoreGames]

Being legally bound by man’s laws is called a “civil union”. Being legally bound by God’s laws is called “marriage”.

God designed marriage to be between one man and one woman until death do they part.

Changing the definition of marriage is telling me I have to change my religious beliefs which a perversion of freedom.

Not necessarily. Just because it would be allowed within the state does not mean it would have to be allowed by any religious group. Therefore, even if the legal meaning changed, your definition would not have to.

 

[eichenb2]

I agree that new is built on old, indeed that is the only way to progress, but there is nothing wrong with changing old as time goes on. Look at how much the Mass has transformed and how much more dynamic it has become just in our lifetime in order to stay up to date (at least at the parish i belong to, but the pastor said it was a nation wide change)

If you even admit that most likely the mojority are not demanding acceptance, why should tehy be help accountalbe to the actions of those that are?

The difference is that there is a separation of church and state. The state exists for the citizens, where as members exist to serve the church.

This topic was not about the common view of the morality of homosexual marriage, but about on what grounds it is denied in the states.

Separation of Church and State is NOT a dogma in Catholicism. As regards morality, a dictatorship can be better than a democracy.