Gay Marriage & Being a Good Catholic

[Faithdancer]

The unspoken attitude of many Catholics now seems to be: "Well, marriage is already meaningless, so why not let the gays have it too!

To think this way is denial of Church dogma, which the Sacrament of Marriage surely is. Denial of Church dogma is heresy. Why do those “Catholics” even stay in the Church?

 

[Seeker1961]

What do you think Paul would have said to the Church if the right to vote existed in the ancient world as it does today, and there was an upcoming vote to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. My guess is that he would say something like, “Vote your conscience people. But let your conscience be informed by Christ and His Church; Jesus taught that marriage occurrs when a man and a woman come together, and the two become one.”

Keep in mind that it is not the Church that started this fight over the definition of marriage. Until a few years ago, the institution of marriage was understood universally as between male and female - because it was oriented not simply towards companionship, but towards the procreation and rearing of children.

Peace,
Robert

Since Paul is no longer with us and couldn’t have imagined a society that is not based on some system of religion, it’s hard to say what he would have said to us who live in a secular nation. In our system of government, laws must be based on something other than “my God says so” or “my Holy Book says so”-and this is a GOOD thing, because as a Catholic I don’t want to have to obey laws based on someone else’s concept of God or words in a Holy Book that isn’t mine, just because they’ve gotten a larger population in my state or spent a lot of money on advertising.

Paul might have said to let the secular nation do what it wills-but WE must obey a higher law and follow our religious beliefs. This is how I live. There are things that are legal and permissible in secular society that I do not do because my faith prohibits it. If asked, I always explain why and share my faith with others, tell them why my life is immeasurably better since I have made that choice to live according to the teachings of Christ.

 

[fix]

prescriptions regarding murder are not catholic doctrines? Maybe not, but it’s one of the 10 commandments, is it not? Do we know the year that God handed down to Moses the 10 commandments?

The commandemnts re-introduced what was already written on all hearts.

 

[fix]

What direct harm is done solely to another person as in the cases or rape, robbery or murder does the coupling of two members of the same sex cause?

It harms society. It harms marriage. It harms children. It harms family.

The metric is not direct physical damage like having one’s arm suddenly cut off. That is a reductionist understanding of morality and common good.

In the cases of lying and cheating, where such acts may not necessarily have a criminal component but can indeed cause harm to society, what immediate benefit will society see by the absence of same-sex coupling, which does exist in society today, with or without legal marriage contracts?

Immediately children would be protected from being subjected to such a cruel experiment.

 

[fix]

Yes, because the state has lost its bearings. It seems to think that its purpose is to keep everyone contented rather than to provide for the common good. Parents must understand the difference between making people happy and providing for the common good!

The problem is our democracy is not infused with enough morality. That is the key. Once people stop upholding the natural moral law then we devolve and quickly.

 

[Faithdancer]

The problem is our democracy is not infused with enough morality. That is the key. Once people stop upholding the natural moral law then we devolve and quickly.

Amen to that. The devolution you describe is a natural result of materialism and moral relativism. There is either absolute morality or there will ultimately be no morality.

 

[Bill_7154]

I’m not going to listen to anyone talking gloom and doom. Are we Catholics? Do we believe in the power of God? We had better, because no one, no Zimmerman or Smith or Jones, strengthens us. It is God through prayer. And God who gives hope.

Peace,
Ed

You have heard of the rapture, yes? My father, who is very religious (a Eucharistic Minister, goes to Church 7 days a week) tells me that many of the things that are happening around the world today have already been predicted in the bible.

 

[edwest2]

I agree that many gay couples don’t believe in fidelity. The sad truth is that a lot of heterosexual married couples don’t believe in fidelity either. Oh, they say they believe in it, but in practice they only believe in it until it becomes inconvenient.

Gay marriage would not even be on the horizon if marriage had not been sufficiently undermined by contraception, divorce, and fornication. The institution had to be destroyed before gay marriage became possible!

(The unspoken attitude of many Catholics now seems to be: "Well, marriage is already meaningless, so why not let the gays have it too!)

In that case, our spoken message needs to be - Catholics, Come Home!

catholicscomehome.org/top-ten-reasons.php

I know of too many Catholics who do not realize that our communities were gradually infiltrated - that is the correct word - with people who lived their bad beliefs. Who encouraged others to be bad role models and to follow them. It was gradual. It took 40 years.

Let me take you back to 1969, and a concerned mother or father on the phone with their son, “If you love the girl then why don’t you get married instead of living together in sin?”

“Listen Dad. Things have changed. We’re adults and we can live how we want.”

“If you were an adult then you would do the things you were taught. not just because I’m your father but because the Church taught you the same thing.”

“You’re wrong Dad. The old ways are gone. We’ve got freedom now. And people who are showing us a better, freer way. Society moves on and you’re stuck in the past.”

“Well, son. Me and your mother still love you. And I hope you come to realize that you’re being lied to one day.”

Too many Catholics feel that “I sinned way too much. I slept around. I got divorced multiple times. I feel like God and/or the Church won’t take me back. I’ve had an abortion or two. I know God and/or the Church hates me for it.” Or “It hurts too much to remember.”

God is hope. God loves you right now. It’s not too late. THAT is the message we need to speak always, especially today. WE NEED TO BE SILENT NO MORE.

silentnomoreawareness.org/about/

Despair is from the devil. And yes, there is a hell, but God’s infinite mercy is available right now! Call a parish, talk to a priest. Renew yourself!

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

You have heard of the rapture, yes? My father, who is very religious (a Eucharistic Minister, goes to Church 7 days a week) tells me that many of the things that are happening around the world today have already been predicted in the bible.

Yes, I know all about it. During World War II, while millions were dying, and the Jews were dying, many thought the Rapture or End of the World was upon us. This is all about making gay sex legal as “marriage.” We have the time - right now - to speak the truth.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Here’s the real issue:

Gays don’t want civil unions or domestic partnerships, but they’ll take what they can get – for now. The goal is turning gay sex into marriage. And all I’m seeing is a benefits package attached and zero responsibilities. Many couples in gay marriages don’t believe in fidelity.

Wake up people. The goal is obvious. Don’t be fooled. And keep your private sex life private. Otherwise, talk to a medical professional when you have a problem.

To my fellow Catholics, gay marriage is going back on the ballot in a few states. And the correct question is: Why does anybody need my permission to live how they want? They don’t.

Peace,
Ed

It’s not permission that is being sought. It is Legislated acceptance of the gay lifestyle that is sought. Not permission, but approval and validation. If there is no legal difference between a married heterosexual couple and a same sex couple, then-so gay advocates say-everybody is truly “equal.” I think it’s a mis-step as far as a rational argument goes, because (1) personal attitudes cannot be legislated; and (2) a duck is still a duck, and not a chicken, even if you pass a law expanding the definition of the term chicken to also include ducks.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

…In our system of government, laws must be based on something other than “my God says so” or “my Holy Book says so”-and this is a GOOD thing, because as a Catholic I don’t want to have to obey laws based on someone else’s concept of God or words in a Holy Book that isn’t mine, just because they’ve gotten a larger population in my state or spent a lot of money on advertising.

My point is that Paul would have told the faithful to take their religious beliefs with them to to polls. There is a distinction to be drawn between legislating Catholic dogmas, and legislating in a way that is consistent with reason and nature as well as Catholic dogma. Laws against murder, rape, and incest are consistent with Catholic teaching as well, but they are not laws based on what the Bible says. They are laws based upon reason and logic.

What if a religion was formed next year, and its members considered the rape of “unbelievers” to be a justified act. Would you stand by while these persons attempted to change sexual assault laws so that they could be free from moral and legal stigma attached to such actions? If you are consistent on this point, as you are with gay marriage, then you don’t think you should impose your Catholic teaching that rape is morally indefensible, because that would be wrong? Do you see the inconsistency here?

The issue of marriage is analogous. What we believe as Catholics is not simply divine revelation, but entirely consistent with what one can know just by examining the nature of human beings. There is a unique quality in a relationship between two people who come together and commit to being open to *creating * and nurturing the next generation. The word that we use to identify that unique relationship is “marriage.” While same-sex couples may have a loving relationship, and may want to call it a marriage, a same-sex union is fundamentally and intrinsically different from a marriage because it is completely closed off to the possibility of creating new life. It is not imposing our “religious” beliefs on society when we, as Catholics, say that marriage should continue to be recognized as uniquely between a man and a woman, as it has always been. Rather, it is saying to society that logic and reason should rule the day.

Seeker1961:

Paul might have said to let the secular nation do what it wills-but WE must obey a higher law and follow our religious beliefs. This is how I live. There are things that are legal and permissible in secular society that I do not do because my faith prohibits it. If asked, I always explain why and share my faith with others, tell them why my life is immeasurably better since I have made that choice to live according to the teachings of Christ.

Of course we are called to follow the moral law as we believe it has been divinely revealed to us. That is not in question. What I’m saying is that in addition to following the moral law as we know it to be revealed, we have an obligation as Catholics to bring that with us to society, and live it out in how we behave, and how we engage in the political and legislative process. It would not be an establishment of religion to establish marriage as between a man and a woman alone, if it were recognized that the coming together of man and woman in a way that is open to creating new life is simply not the same thing as a same-sex union. Although they share many common characteristics, which we can all recognize, the former is uniquely open to creating new life, while the latter is entirely closed off on a natural level. We can say these things publicly, and politically, in a spirit of truth and love, without imposing Catholic dogma on anyone.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Seeker1961]

So when the Muslim community wants to vote in Sharia Law, you’re ok with that, right? After all, they are following the moral law as they know it, and bringing their faith into the community.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The problem is our democracy is not infused with enough morality. That is the key. Once people stop upholding the natural moral law then we devolve and quickly.

It’s not that there is no morality. The problem is moral relativism. The primary argument for gay marriage is that pro-family advocates should just let a gay couple call their relationship a marriage, because that’s what they believe. All kinds of problems will result, because marriage will continue to be what it is, just like gravity will continue to be what it is, regardless of how we define it.

If we pass a law saying that gravity no longer applies to fruit, apples will not stop falling from trees. But we will have to create a whole new legal paradigm to handle the artificial paradox. The same holds true for marriage. If marriage is no longer connected with procreation, then family law will need to be fundamentally reformed as well.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

So when the Muslim community wants to vote in Sharia Law, you’re ok with that, right? After all, they are following the moral law as they know it, and bringing their faith into the community.

Wow. You’re really missing the point. First, I’m not saying that at all. In fact, as a Catholic I would oppose the imposition of Sharia law on both moral and religious grounds, and vote accordingly.

Second, I’m not advocating the voting in of Catholic dogmas. My point was just the opposite - gay marriage is not a “Catholic” dogma issue although it is consistent with Catholic moral teaching. Rather, it is a natural law issue, just as criminal laws against murder, rape, and incest are natural law issues consistent with Catholic moral teaching.

Third, I’m not saying that Muslims don’t have a right to advocate for laws that are consistent with their own moral teaching. Indeed, I would expect that Muslims who oppose abortion, euthenasia, and gay marriage, would vote on such measures consistent with the dictates of their own conscience. But that is a far cry from my stating that I would roll over and accept Sharia law. To the contrary, such a position seems consistent with your own position - i.e. Catholics shouldn’t legislate their own Catholic morality, but if someone wants to legislate their different morality, we can’t say no. (Please let me know if I’ve misrepresented your position. But this seems to be what you are saying above.)

Fourth, the imposition of Sharia law has all kinds of 1st Amendment (Establishment Clause) issues attached. I don’t see how opposition to the re-definition of marriage raises such issues, since traditional marriage is a consistent practice far beyond the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.

Peace,
Robert

 

[ScienceFact]

The bottom line is that yes, it is against the Christian / Catholic belief for same sex marriage.
But does it make that okay? Oppressing others because of their sexuality is like oppressing Catholic people for being Christian. How is that any different? When it comes down to it, they are no different to other people and if what they are doing does not affect you in any direct way, then don’t fuss about it.

 

[ScienceFact]

The bottom line is that if it doesn’t directly affect you, don’t fuss about it. Being oppressed because of your lifestyle/ beliefs is in humane. The Catholic beliefs have been oppressed in the past, and if that is not okay, than what makes this okay?
they are still human beings and all deserve the same human rights, and one of those rights is that everyone has the right to marriage, if you don’t follow that human right, you may as well forget all of them.

 

[Seeker1961]

Wow. You’re really missing the point. First, I’m not saying that at all. In fact, as a Catholic I would oppose the imposition of Sharia law on both moral and religious grounds, and vote accordingly.

Second, I’m not advocating the voting in of Catholic dogmas. My point was just the opposite - gay marriage is not a “Catholic” dogma issue although it is consistent with Catholic moral teaching. Rather, it is a natural law issue, just as criminal laws against murder, rape, and incest are natural law issues consistent with Catholic moral teaching.

Third, I’m not saying that Muslims don’t have a right to advocate for laws that are consistent with their own moral teaching. Indeed, I would expect that Muslims who oppose abortion, euthenasia, and gay marriage, would vote on such measures consistent with the dictates of their own conscience. But that is a far cry from my stating that I would roll over and accept Sharia law. To the contrary, such a position seems consistent with your own position - i.e. Catholics shouldn’t legislate their own Catholic morality, but if someone wants to legislate their different morality, we can’t say no. (Please let me know if I’ve misrepresented your position. But this seems to be what you are saying above.)

Fourth, the imposition of Sharia law has all kinds of 1st Amendment (Establishment Clause) issues attached. I don’t see how opposition to the re-definition of marriage raises such issues, since traditional marriage is a consistent practice far beyond the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.

Peace,
Robert

My position is that I don’t believe that secular law should be based on the tenets of any religion alone. As I said earlier-if the main argument for the law is “my God says so” or “my Holy Book says so”, then it has no place in secular law. I don’t care whose God or whose Holy Book we’re using.

Even Christian faiths do not agree on same sex marriage, so I fail to see how universal that is. Marriage has changed and evolved in all kinds of ways throughout history, so let’s end the fiction of “this is how it has always been”. How many wives did they have in Biblical times again? And how about all the inter-family marrying that went on to consolidate armies and kingdoms? Not to mention the general condition of the wife as property, or the marrying off of children to old men. This is how it has been in your lifetime and in your faith tradition but not for the entire scope of history and not for every faith tradition.

No matter what the secular definition of marriage is, was or will be-the Church has made hers. She has shown constancy even in the face of a King wanting to change it. He changed his rules, but the Church stayed the same. In the states where gay marriage is already legal, the Church has kept Her same rules. If the entire country legalizes gay marriage tomorrow, the Church will keep Her rules.

 

[JimG]

My position is that I don’t believe that secular law should be based on the tenets of any religion alone. As I said earlier-if the main argument for the law is “my God says so” or “my Holy Book says so”, then it has no place in secular law. I don’t care whose God or whose Holy Book we’re using.

But opposition to homosexual marriage is not based on someone’s holy book or religion. It’s based on how human beings are made. Without sexual complementarity, marital intercourse is impossible; conjugal relations are impossible. A marriage which is incapable of fulfilling the basic conjugal act is no marriage it all. It is a fantasy pretending to be a reality.

Even Christian faiths do not agree on same sex marriage, so I fail to see how universal that is. Marriage has changed and evolved in all kinds of ways throughout history, so let’s end the fiction of “this is how it has always been”. How many wives did they have in Biblical times again? And how about all the inter-family marrying that went on to consolidate armies and kingdoms? Not to mention the general condition of the wife as property, or the marrying off of children to old men. This is how it has been in your lifetime and in your faith tradition but not for the entire scope of history and not for every faith tradition.

For over 2,000 years of it history, Christianity has agreed on what marriage is. A few people falling into unreason and heresy in the last decade or so does not overrule 2,000 years of Christianity or the centuries of Judaism preceding it. Even pagan societies recognized as a matter of nature, that male and female were the proper subjects for marriage.

Even polygamy is heterosexual. Even concubinage is heterosexual. Inter-family marriages have nothing to do with homosexual marriage.

Applying the term marriage to same sex unions is simply meaningless—It’s like applying the term ‘airplane’ to a hot air balloon. It just isn’t and can never be. It’s a natural and biological impossibility.

 

[Seeker1961]

For over 2,000 years of it history, Christianity has agreed on what marriage is.

The bottom line is Christianity is NOT in charge of the secular state and it should not be-neither should any other religion.

You’re defining marriage like Lego-if the “pieces” don’t fit, it can’t be marriage. Marital intercourse as Lego isn’t possible for gay people, and conjugal relations as Lego aren’t possible-but that doesn’t mean that there is no physical bonding moment for those couples. You may not like it, it may make you go “ewww”, you may think it’s a “fantasy” but that’s not a basis for a law against it either.

 

[fix]

It’s not that there is no morality. The problem is moral relativism. The primary argument for gay marriage is that pro-family advocates should just let a gay couple call their relationship a marriage, because that’s what they believe. All kinds of problems will result, because marriage will continue to be what it is, just like gravity will continue to be what it is, regardless of how we define it.

If we pass a law saying that gravity no longer applies to fruit, apples will not stop falling from trees. But we will have to create a whole new legal paradigm to handle the artificial paradox. The same holds true for marriage. If marriage is no longer connected with procreation, then family law will need to be fundamentally reformed as well.

Peace,
Robert

I agree. I was making an allusion to:

There is a tendency to see intellectual relativism as the necessary corollary of democratic forms of political life. In such a view, truth is determined by the majority and varies in accordance with passing cultural and political trends. From this point of view, those who are convinced that certain truths are absolute and immutable are considered unreasonable and unreliable. On the other hand, as Christians we firmly believe that “if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism” (Centesimus annus, n. 46).