Gay Marriage for Them, Not Us

  • Thread starter Thread starter Everyman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Everyman

Guest
I recently read that the Dalai Llama was asked what he thought about homosexual marriage. (Now look, I know he’s not a good, Catholic authority, but bear with me.)

He responded by saying that he, as a Buddhist, personally believed that homosexuality was wrong and that he would always preach to Buddhists that they must refrain from such a lifestyle. However, he said that he saw no reason why the secular state should forbid the marrying of homosexuals.

This made me think about our situation. As Catholics, should we take a similar position, or is that morally opposed to the teaching of the Church somehow? I ran this by some friends, and they responded by saying, “Yeah, what he said makes sense, but I just don’t want my kids growing up around that.”

What do you think?
 
There is a difference between “this is sinful”, and “this should be illegal”.

It doesn’t follow that sinful actions should never be forbidden by law - only that we ought not necessarily to call for laws against every sinful action.

As for “gay marriage”…In a truly Christian state, it would be impossible anyway. You couldn’t find anyone with authority to perform weddings, willing to perform a homosexual wedding.
In a secular/pluralistic state, which IMO is a better description of the United Sates and Canada, the laws must allow for religious diversity.

I don’t know what decision I would make, were I in charge. Like Everyman’s friend, I don’t want kids growing up around that.
 
Morality is objective and universal. By no means does the moral law only apply to Christians. The state has an obligation to protect the common good. A legal system designed to accommodate and facilitate objective evil is contrary to the common good.
 
Aside from the sinful state our country is in today; anyone person with a bit of common sense can see that God made man for a woman, and woman for a man. Only a man and woman can bring life into the world.
Anyone who is still confused, have you ever heard about Sodom and Gomorrah ?
 
Everyman said:
I
He responded by saying that he, as a Buddhist, personally believed that homosexuality was wrong and that he would always preach to Buddhists that they must refrain from such a lifestyle. However, he said that he saw no reason why the secular state should forbid the marrying of homosexuals.
?
Click to expand...
I think he has a great career in American politics if he ever loses his day job
 
Everyman said:
I recently read that the Dalai Llama was asked what he thought about homosexual marriage. (Now look, I know he’s not a good, Catholic authority, but bear with me.)

He responded by saying that he, as a Buddhist, personally believed that homosexuality was wrong and that he would always preach to Buddhists that they must refrain from such a lifestyle. However, he said that he saw no reason why the secular state should forbid the marrying of homosexuals.

This made me think about our situation. As Catholics, should we take a similar position, or is that morally opposed to the teaching of the Church somehow? I ran this by some friends, and they responded by saying, “Yeah, what he said makes sense, but I just don’t want my kids growing up around that.”

What do you think?
Click to expand...
I think why should homosexuals get to be calm, carefree and have lots of disposable income? They should get married too!😃 But seriously I think its our responsibility to stand up for God be his voice. No Gay marriage.
 
atsheeran said:
Morality is objective and universal. By no means does the moral law only apply to Christians. The state has an obligation to protect the common good. A legal system designed to accommodate and facilitate objective evil is contrary to the common good.
Click to expand...
How do we know what the common good is?
 
noma said:
How do we know what the common good is?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are not Catholic and don’t know. It does seem an odd question if you are. The common good is the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is called “The Catholic Church.”

CDL
 
Might one presume that all 50 states should repeal their divorce laws for the same reasons given for a prohibition on civil gay marriage? Might I presume that everyone will begin the appropriate agitation to repeal those laws?

Just something to consider folks…
 
GregoryPalamas said:
Perhaps you are not Catholic and don’t know. It does seem an odd question if you are. The common good is the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is called “The Catholic Church.”

CDL
Click to expand...
I am Catholic. But I am not part of the Roman Church (including Roman Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, and all others who are under the pope).

So the law, reflecting the common good, should, I take it as you believe, reflect then the “Kingdom of God”, which you also believe to be the Roman Church.

If that is the case, should not the United States make the pope the ruler of the nation? Should they not enact laws based on new encyclicals?

Or would that violate the pope’s own teaching on religious freedom?

My main question, how do we know when civil law is supposed to support the common good in alignment with the Roman Church, and how do we know when the Roman’s teaching on freedom is instead supposed to be upheld?

Thank you.
 
johnnykins said:
Might one presume that all 50 states should repeal their divorce laws for the same reasons given for a prohibition on civil gay marriage? Might I presume that everyone will begin the appropriate agitation to repeal those laws?

Just something to consider folks…
Click to expand...
We try to prevent as much evil as possible. This battle that you mention was fought and lost by the Church over a more than 100 year period. It is a shame but there you have it. We try but don’t always succeed. Someday.

CDL
 
noma said:
I am Catholic. But I am not part of the Roman Church (including Roman Catholics, Byzantine Catholics, and all others who are under the pope).

So the law, reflecting the common good, should, I take it as you believe, reflect then the “Kingdom of God”, which you also believe to be the Roman Church.

If that is the case, should not the United States make the pope the ruler of the nation? Should they not enact laws based on new encyclicals?

Or would that violate the pope’s own teaching on religious freedom?

My main question, how do we know when civil law is supposed to support the common good in alignment with the Roman Church, and how do we know when the Roman’s teaching on freedom is instead supposed to be upheld?

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I take it that you are Orthodox. In any event the Catholic Church is not simply Roman.

Finally, freedom is found in following the Body of Christ and living within that Body. It would be glorious if all secular states were in communion with the Church. They would no longer be secular which would be glorious. It’s not likely to happen but we can keep trying.

CDL

BTW I just checked your public profile. You seem to be trying to trick me into thinking that you are Catholic. I note that you are not.
 
GregoryPalamas said:
Finally, freedom is found in following the Body of Christ and living within that Body.

…

BTW I just checked your public profile. You seem to be trying to trick me into thinking that you are Catholic. I note that you are not.
Click to expand...
First off, freedom can only come in following, and following only in having the choice to follow, unrestricted by civil law. Where law declares what is right and what is wrong in all matters, there is no freedom, not even the freedom to love. Where tax is high, the poor are fed from the rich, but there is no charity. Where laws force people to do what is right, there is less virtue.

And I am Catholic. More Catholic than the Roman Church, definitely. (Though I do not consider myself Anglican yet, I am leaning that way, and within the Anglican Church are more Catholics, I believe, than in the Roman Church).
 
GregoryPalamas said:
We try to prevent as much evil as possible. This battle that you mention was fought and lost by the Church over a more than 100 year period. It is a shame but there you have it. We try but don’t always succeed. Someday.

CDL
Click to expand...
I agree. Unfortunately, I also believe this battle has already been lost.

Even if not lost, the Bishops have so compromised their moral authority with the sex abuse scandal, they are, IMHO, nearly worse than useless in their public pronouncements on the issue. Couple that with the failure of the Church to catechize the faithful - many, if not most, Catholics accept the entire concept. The fruits of the Springtime of the Spirit of Vatican II continue to burst forth.

We can all thank the Bishops, non-believeing and liberal nuns, priests and brothers for thier tireless efforts over the last 40 years for this and many other abominations for which they have done so much to promote by undermining the faith. It really is both a shame and a scandal - in the truest sense of the word.
 
What I’m hearing from most of you is that we should try to conform our government’s laws to what we as Christians believe to be the moral law of God. This sounds very much like a theonomist approach–one I use to subscribe to when I was a Reconstructinist Calvinist. Is this also the primary thought of the Church?

I admit, in our increasingly secularized state, the Dalai Llama’s way of thinking makes sense. But if the Church teaches something contrary to that, I will certainly submit my thought’s to Her mind.

This reminds of a story my wife told me last night. She works in an administrative position at a school where they were practicing to sing some Christmas carols. They were all just unoffensive ones like “Jingle Bells” accept one–“Away in a Manger.” It was clear to my wife that song was causing some contention with a couple of her coworkers as they refused to sing during that one. So she made the decision to have that one cut from the program.

When she first told me, I was like, “What!?! You just contributed to the secularization of our country! We have a right sing religious songs. This is a Christian nation!” But then she explained that she really struggled with the decision and thought that it was actually the more Christian thing to do, because she found herself sympathizing with the ones who were offended.

I settled down and thought of the Dalai Llama. Perhaps he has some wisdom for us American Christians who are so adamant about making our morality the law of the land. We are no longer a Christian nation. We are a diverse melting pot of thoughts and ideas, Christianity only being one. And I don’t think that is a threat to the faith. Just as the Buddhist doesn’t think it is a threat to his.

But as I said, if I’m out of line, I’ll submit my thoughts to the mind of the Church.
 
The fact is that we live in a country where the government is supposed to represent the people. Therefore we have every right to try and make it represent us. That is democracy. The leadership and even the laws should, in theory, reflect the majority of the people.
 
Verita said:
The fact is that we live in a country where the government is supposed to represent the people. Therefore we have every right to try and make it represent us. That is democracy. The leadership and even the laws should, in theory, reflect the majority of the people.
Click to expand...
Then it would follow that those who disagree have every right to try to make sure you fail.

And I hope that the “rule by majority” is not what our wonderful democracy breaks down to. For in such a system, the minority loses its voice.
 
Verita said:
The fact is that we live in a country where the government is supposed to represent the people. Therefore we have every right to try and make it represent us. That is democracy. The leadership and even the laws should, in theory, reflect the majority of the people.
Click to expand...
So, although this may not be the case right now, what should we as Christians do if we find ourselves in the minority? Still fight against it? Or simply realize that democracy has had its say?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top