Gay Marriage and the Social Issues Surrounding It

[Faithdancer]

What would I say to a Muslim? Jesus could not have been a prophet. He clearly talked and acted as God. Jesus was either a great heretic (as some Jews believe) or HE IS WHO HE says HE IS.

Amen, Across the Desert. There seems to be an undercurrent here of, not only moral relativism- which is shocking enough when it is evidenced by those who profess Catholic Christianity- but theological relativism as well.

 

[PRmerger]

This is true, in the collective “we.” Where did I ever say that the Catholic Church does not call for evangelizing everyone?

Actually, YOU, as an individual, are called to evangelize. Not simply the Church Militant.

I simply state that I, an individual, won’t focuse my effort trying to evangelize “atheists.”

And I respectfully say, I am thankful for that. Your efforts would not be efficacious at all. :nope: Probably counter-productive, IMHO.

 

[PRmerger]

Amen, Across the Desert. There seems to be an undercurrent here of, not only moral relativism- which is shocking enough when it is evidenced by those who profess Catholic Christianity- but theological relativism as well.

And yet Acrossthedesert did not quote the Bible nor the Magisterium in his apologia.

That which you are proclaiming, Faithdancer, is to say, “Well, the Bible says that Jesus is God so what more do you need?”

Not very effective.

But, as you say, you have no mind to evangelize, so it’s a moot point anyway.

 

[PRmerger]

For those who may have concluded from reading some posts here that Catholics as individuals are not called to evangelize, please do not be mislead by that error.

All Catholics are called to evangelize.

Not just the Catholic Church as a whole.

As proclaimed by Pope Paul VI in his magnificent encyclical, Evangelii Nuntiandi,

The command to the Twelve to go out and proclaim the Good News is also valid for all Christians, though in a different way. It is precisely for this reason that Peter calls Christians “a people set apart to sing the praises of God,” (1 Peter 2:4-9) those marvelous things that each one was able to hear in his own language.(Acts 2:11) Moreover, the Good News of the kingdom which is coming and which has begun is meant for all people of all times. Those who have received the Good News and who have been gathered by it into the community of salvation can and must communicate and spread it.

Not to mention, of course, the injunction from the Sacred Scriptures themselves:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Peter 3:15[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[SuperLuigi]

Is there seriously something in the constitution or federalist papers that talks about marriage licenses?

There is no Constitutional right to marriage.

Family law has always been reserved to the states.

 

[markeverett49]

For those who may have concluded from reading some posts here that Catholics as individuals are not called to evangelize, please do not be mislead by that error.) Moreover, the Good News of the kingdom which is coming and which has begun is meant for all people of all times. Those who have received the Good News and who have been gathered by it into the community of salvation can and must communicate and spread it. ]

This does not mean that each Catholic must evangelize each person he meets. Moreover, there is a vast difference between the spiritual injunction to answer those who ask a Catholic the cause for the joy within them----those who ask to hear the truth you would happily share—and those who think any appeal to one’s faith is to be rejected out of hand as unreasonable. Atheists need to be evangelized but that doesn’t mean every Catholic is well suited to do it.

 

[PRmerger]

This does not mean that each Catholic must evangelize each person he meets. Moreover, there is a vast difference between the spiritual injunction to answer those who ask a Catholic the cause for the joy within them----those who ask to hear the truth you would happily share—and those who think any appeal to one’s faith is to be rejected out of hand as unreasonable.

True, this.

Atheists need to be evangelized but that doesn’t mean every Catholic is well suited to do it.

:sad_yes:

There are some that are acutely indisposed to doing this and it is better for them, for us, and, ultimately for the atheist, that they make no attempt to do this.

 

[Faithdancer]

Actually, YOU, as an individual, are called to evangelize. Not simply the Church Militant…

No need to be patronizing.

And I respectfully say, I am thankful for that. Your efforts would not be efficacious at all. :nope: Probably counter-productive, IMHO.

I never said otherwise. “Atheists” reject God, or so they claim. If someone wants to take on the effort of evangelizing them, more power to them.

You don’t seem to understand that I am not called upon to individually and indiscriminately evangelize everyone under the sun, and no one else is either. Who has the time and energy? But perhaps you could share what you are doing, outside of typing on these forums. I’m not saying you aren’t doing anything, I’d just like to know where you come from with the attitude that everyone must evangelize “atheists”, or that somehow focusing on converting “atheists” is the best use of everyone’s time and ability. Is that more worthy than spending one’s efforts evangelizing within the parish? Do you think we should ignore all those who are enrolled in a parish, but aren’t attending Mass regularly, or are in need of pastoral care or adult catechism, and focus our attention on “atheists”?

btw I put “atheists” in quotes not to degrade, but because I don’t believe most people who describe themselves as such, really are. In fact, many of them agree. But that is a topic on another thread.

 

[Faithdancer]

This does not mean that each Catholic must evangelize each person he meets. Moreover, there is a vast difference between the spiritual injunction to answer those who ask a Catholic the cause for the joy within them----those who ask to hear the truth you would happily share—and those who think any appeal to one’s faith is to be rejected out of hand as unreasonable. Atheists need to be evangelized but that doesn’t mean every Catholic is well suited to do it.

Agreed (of course!). No one is saying that unbelievers should be ignored. I am saying, however, that before we spend time and resources on them, we should focus on our own parishes. Unless one worships in a parish were everyone is fully catechized, understands the Sunday obligation, the importance of regular Reconciliation, etc., and there is a high percentage of parishioners showing up at Mass and participating in the life, work, and ministry of the Church, there is thriving religious education and youth ministry, etc. etc., then I believe the parish should be the primary focus of evangelization, not converting unbelievers or those of other faiths. How can we convince those outside the faith that we are worth listening to, if our own parishes don’t reflect fervent faith?

 

[Faithdancer]

While obviously all of this talk about evangelization is way off topic, I entreat the moderator(s) to move the relevant posts to a new thread, rather than close this one. At any rate mea culpa, and I hereby promise not to create or respond to any further posts on the subject of evangelization on this thread.

 

[atheistgirl]

Moreover, there is a vast difference between the spiritual injunction to answer those who ask a Catholic the cause for the joy within them

Just as an observation, and nothing more, the Catholics I’ve met, where I’m aware they are Catholics (and I admit it’s been very few) were not people that appeared to me to have ‘‘joy within them’’ that would cause me to be curious about this.

Some of the people I meet through a project I’m involved with though, none of whom are Catholic, you could be forgiven for thinking they were abusing substances they’re so hyped and happy

I’ve always put it down to Catholics on the whole being more reserved

Atheists need to be evangelized but that doesn’t mean every Catholic is well suited to do it.

Indeed.

Sarah x

 

[Faithdancer]

Back on track…while there are many social issues surrounding gay “marriage” one of the most commonly discussed may be gay couples adopting children, or raising biological children of one or both partners. Within this issue is the potential corollary issue of gay parents or surrogate parents engaging in homosexual activity within a household containing children. Is there a significant effect on the psychological and emotional welfare of children, when homosexual activity is occurring within a household where children are present? Are these children being influenced, in any way, toward a homosexual orientation? If there is insufficient data either way to indicate whether or not raising children in an environment where homosexual activity among adults is practiced (even discreetly) is harmful, is it ethical to allow active homosexuals to raise children anyway, or is this social experimentation?

 

[SgtSchultz]

" if you want to corrupt a culture, first corrupt the language."

Double plus good

SgtSchultz, let’s try this again.

The proposition: Gay marriage is a matter of equality and therefore, gays should be allowed to attain a marriage license.

Ok

1. People are “equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” For example, we have a natural right to speak, to religion, to assemble etc. Do you agree?

I do

1. People do not have a natural right to a marriage licence. Licenses are given by governments (men) to bestow benefits. Do you agree?

I do. However, some will talk about the nature of licences, how driving requires taking care of a motor vehicle, etc. I understand what you’re trying to say however. I’m just not sure this is the best way to illustrate it. If you base your argument around licences and such, I believe it will fail. Or at the very least it will be needlessly compromised.

1. The laws concerning marriage licenses and the associated benefits were written to encourage/promote marriage according to society’s Christian beliefs.Do you agree?

Indeed. They were originally written to encourage both biological parents to raise both their biological children in a stable, two-biological parent, household. While the reasons for encouraging this may not have been Christian in and of themselves, the origins of this being considered a good thing are indeed Judeo/Christian.

However, how does one respond to the charge that “marriage has already been screwed-up by no-fault divorce and sham marriages such as the kind celebrities have, etc. etc.”?

1. Therefore, gay marriage is not about equality. Gay marriage is about promoting a “gay lifestyle”.

I don’t think the movement to create same sex marriage is about promoting the gay lifestyle as much as it is about trying to get people to *accept *the gay lifestyle and to make it seem normal or equal to monogamous heterosexual couplings.

1. People are righteous not to support gay marriage in that promoting this “lifestyle” is contrary to their beliefs. Do you agree?

I think people are right in not supporting same sex marriage proposals for the reasons I explained directly above, about how it’s an attempt to make something that will effect less than 1% of the population and offers no benefit to society is to be considered “equal”.

For example, Catholics are righteous to oppose gay marriage because promoting a “gay lifestyle” is contrary to the mandates of their Church, its Sacred Tradition, and the natural law. Do you agree?

Of course. While I don’t think the way you’ve constructed your argument necessarily logically flows to such a conclusion, but I do agree with it. To convince others you will need to refine this.

Of course, it goes without saying that one should not condone remarriage, shacking-up, sleeping around, pornography, etc. If one spends more time denouncing same sex marriage than decrying those other things, people will think one is playing “holier than thou” and is singling out those with same sex attraction unfairly. All those things are wrong, and it’s wrong to only denounce one of them.

I’m afraid that one of the reasons why same sex marriage opponents are having a hard time these days is because no one made anywhere near as much of a fuss when contraception and abortions were legalised or when no-fault divorce was introduced. It seems like proponents of traditional marriage are being hypocrites or are unfairly targeting a the temptations and burdens of a single segment of the population. This seems (because it is) terribly inconsistent and one-sided. Had everyone been as up in arms in the past about these other damages to the family, we wouldn’t even have same sex marriage today.

I am simply saying that even you do not use only Scripture, or religious arguments, when you are in dialogue with a non-believer.

Bang-on. In fact, this sentiment is actually in the Bible! (Though for the life of me I can’t remember where.)

One needn’t mention scripture, God, religion, etc. to convey the truths that flow from these things, such as natural law, logic, maths, etc.

 

[SgtSchultz]

IMO the state should have nothing to do with marriage.

I agree. I think marriage should be left to the Church as it was for the majority of history. I don’t think there should be special tax breaks or benefits for anyone. People got married to make a sacrifice for a family, not to get financial perks. Such things give people the wrong incentive to marry and are the reasons why people are trying to redefine marriage today. Had the state kept its hands out of marriage back in the 18th century, we wouldn’t be dealing with any of the nonsense that exists today.

There is no Constitutional right to marriage.

Indeed there is not – even for an opposite-sex couple.

Also, the post to which you are responding was concerned with the intent of your countries’ founders, not necessarily statutory, constitutional, or case law.

Family law has always been reserved to the states.

I Am not entirely sure about this however. If it were completely left to the states, then why aren’t those same sex “marriages” that are recognised by certain states recognised by the Federal Government in matters such as taxation, pensions, etc.? I can understand how, if your claim were true, other states wouldn’t need to recognise same sex marriages, but certainly the Federal Government should. This leads me to believe that your Federal Government has at least some say in Family Law.

Back on track…while there are many social issues surrounding gay “marriage” one of the most commonly discussed may be gay couples adopting children, or raising biological children of one or both partners. Within this issue is the potential corollary issue of gay parents or surrogate parents engaging in homosexual activity within a household containing children. Is there a significant effect on the psychological and emotional welfare of children, when homosexual activity is occurring within a household where children are present? Are these children being influenced, in any way, toward a homosexual orientation? If there is insufficient data either way to indicate whether or not raising children in an environment where homosexual activity among adults is practiced (even discreetly) is harmful, is it ethical to allow active homosexuals to raise children anyway, or is this social experimentation?

There *is *insufficient data and yes it is wrong to simply say “well, let’s go ahead and try this anyway even though we have no proof one way or the other!”

One must be very careful when using this “it is inconclusive whether engaging in activity X is harmful, therefore we should refrain from engaging in activity X” claim. So many people are inconsistent in their use of it. For example, if one uses this claim to argue against the redefinition of marriage, they must also use it for things which have potential negative environmental consequences.

 

[Faithdancer]

Leaving aside the issue of their own biological children, if I may- in deciding whether or not to allow sexually active homosexuals to adopt children, should the fact that a small percentage of the population is homosexual affect the decision? In other words, if there is a possibility that raising children in a household headed by sexually active homosexuals may influence the children toward a sexual orientation held by a small minority of the population, is it still reasonable to allow homosexuals to adopt and raise children?

I realize that this has “nature vs. nurture” implications, but how much can “nurture” be discounted?

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t seem to understand that I am not called upon to individually and indiscriminately evangelize everyone under the sun, and no one else is either.

Right.

But perhaps you could share what you are doing, outside of typing on these forums. I’m not saying you aren’t doing anything, I’d just like to know where you come from with the attitude that everyone must evangelize “atheists”, or that somehow focusing on converting “atheists” is the best use of everyone’s time and ability.

I am doing that which is commanded of me. As should you. And to say that you are not willing to evangelize to atheists is to be contrary to what you are obliged to do.

Is that more worthy than spending one’s efforts evangelizing within the parish? Do you think we should ignore all those who are enrolled in a parish, but aren’t attending Mass regularly, or are in need of pastoral care or adult catechism, and focus our attention on “atheists”?

Quantifying what is “more worthy” or “less worthy” is a peculiar endeavor (and not to mention inutile and impossible) and I have no interest in doing that.

btw I put “atheists” in quotes not to degrade, but because I don’t believe most people who describe themselves as such, really are.

On this we are agreed. I think most are agnostic.

 

[PRmerger]

Bang-on. In fact, this sentiment is actually in the Bible! (Though for the life of me I can’t remember where.)

What comes to my mind is the verse in Romans that discusses the law “written in their hearts”. --Romans 2: 14-15. There is no appeal to religion in that verse. Only that which is true.

One needn’t mention scripture, God, religion, etc. to convey the truths that flow from these things, such as natural law, logic, maths, etc.

That is 100% correct, SgtSchultz. Not only isn’t it necessary, it often inhibits and allows the dialogue to devolve when one brings Scripture, God, religion as part of our apologia.

Gay “marriage” can be opposed without seeking succor in theology. Just as abortion can.

When one uses Scripture to support the argument against abortion it allows the hearer to say, “Well, abortion is a religious issue.” NOPE. Abortion can be (and ought to be) opposed by ANYONE, religious or not.

 

[RobbyS]

Did you find the following argument persuasive?

" if you want to corrupt a culture, first corrupt the language."

The proposition: Gay marriage is a matter of equality and therefore, gays should be allowed to attain a marriage license.

1. What does it mean to be equal in America? We are not physically equal, nor socially, nor economically. We are not equal in rights; Some justly have a right to certain properties they have purchased. People are “equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” We have a natural right to speak, to religion, to assemble etc.
2. Do homosexuals have a natural right to a marriage licence? Well since a license is by very definition a man made provision, I would say NO. This is a right granted by man, and therefore in our case by We the People.
3. So why then do we have marriage licenses and the associated benefits? The People (our forefathers) decided they wanted to encourage/promote marriage according to their own Christian beliefs.
4. So, Gay marriage is not about justice nor equality. Gay marriage is about promoting gay “lifestyles”. Catholics should not support gay marriage and promote “lifestyles” contrary to the mandates of your Church, its Sacred Tradition, and the natural law.

A marriage license is first of all a recognition that the persons involved are free to marry. As you say, under our law the state has always treated marriage as a Sacrament or Holy Ordinance. One reason the gays have made such an effort to persuade the churches to change their teaching is that they can claim that their sexual unions are also sacred. But, of course, if the churches do not go along, they will just try to force them to accept gay marriage by other means. The Catholic Church is by far the chief impediment to their gaining legitimacy.

 

[RobbyS]

What comes to my mind is the verse in Romans that discusses the law “written in their hearts”. --Romans 2: 14-15. There is no appeal to religion in that verse. Only that which is true.

That is 100% correct, SgtSchultz. Not only isn’t it necessary, it often inhibits and allows the dialogue to devolve when one brings Scripture, God, religion as part of our apologia.

Gay “marriage” can be opposed without seeking succor in theology. Just as abortion can.

When one uses Scripture to support the argument against abortion it allows the hearer to say, “Well, abortion is a religious issue.” NOPE. Abortion can be (and ought to be) opposed by ANYONE, religious or not.

It is religious in the sense that opposing abortion requires that we think of life as something sacred. Even an atheist can have this opinion.

 

[PRmerger]

It is religious in the sense that opposing abortion requires that we think of life as something sacred. Even an atheist can have this opinion.

I doubt that any atheist who opposes abortion would say he does it on religious grounds.