Gay Marriage in America

[Glennonite]

I have been reading a lot about the Catholic viewpoint that defense of the family is the real issue regarding gay marriage. I’m on board with that. In any Catholic group, institution, college, parish, etc. we have the right to call it as we see it.

How do I transfer that viewpoint to others in the USA? In other words, in the U.S. there is an expectation or view which holds that as long as one doesn’t harm another, he/she is allowed the freedom to do as they like. “It’s a free country.” Why should I try to enact a law that is restrictive of ANY behavior that doesn’t cause direct, obvious harm to another?

While I don’t think homosexual behavior is morally correct, why should I try try to interfere with people who choose live that way? How does that behavior become my concern? Isn’t it the right of everyone in America to think, believe, and act as they choose as long as they don’t harm others? As a Catholic-American, do I have a duty to try to prevent legal gay-marriage?

Can anyone help me on this question?

Glennonite

 

[Swiss_Guy]

well, why would you want repulsive and disgusting actions happening in society? That effects you because you have to live around it. Plus, to put it bluntly, the parts don’t fit.
How could anyone be okay with it?

 

[lutherlic]

The secular notion that marriage is possible for same sex couples hurts you by normalizing that viewpoint in society. Your ability to raise your children outside of that influence is greatly diminished and is exactly the intent of “gay marriage” laws. Children are already being taught that homosexuality is a good, healthy lifestyle in school. A child you may place for adoption may be raised by such a gay “couple” as an “anti-discrimination” matter, like it or not (Catholic adoption agencies have already been forced to close). Ultimately the Church may not be permitted to perform legal weddings (unless we also “marry gays” which will never happen). Speaking of the sinfulness of homosexual acts may be deemed “hate speech”, a serious blow to your religious freedom. This is not over-the-top fear mongering, but a very real and probable outcome.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I have been reading a lot about the Catholic viewpoint that defense of the family is the real issue regarding gay marriage. I’m on board with that. In any Catholic group, institution, college, parish, etc. we have the right to call it as we see it.

How do I transfer that viewpoint to others in the USA? In other words, in the U.S. there is an expectation or view which holds that as long as one doesn’t harm another, he/she is allowed the freedom to do as they like. “It’s a free country.” Why should I try to enact a law that is restrictive of ANY behavior that doesn’t cause direct, obvious harm to another?

While I don’t think homosexual behavior is morally correct, why should I try try to interfere with people who choose live that way? How does that behavior become my concern? Isn’t it the right of everyone in America to think, believe, and act as they choose as long as they don’t harm others? As a Catholic-American, do I have a duty to try to prevent legal gay-marriage?

Can anyone help me on this question?

Glennonite

A friend of mine had this joke: there was a man who answered to a question with a question. so when a friend confronted him: “Why do you answer a question with a question?” and he replied: “Why do you ask this question?”.

So do I.

So, this is a free country, no? No. That is a free country, for I am European. Yes?
Answer just with a yes or no, which behaviors whould you accept, behaviors these that are harmless for “other people”:

1. 
   *]smoking pot.
   *]taking heroin, cocain, and so on. Remember that drugs legalized would be cheaper so no thefts.
   *]poligamy
   *]androgamy
   *]as arabs do, shooting to the air with machine guns on holidays and festivities, marriages
   *]eating dogs and cats: vietnamese do, it was not harmless for the animals.
   *]public nudism: the others may use dark glasses
   *]drinking on the streets: I was puzzled for in europe it is not forbidden and I did not know. Were I caught with a bootle in NYC and I would be in jails !
   *]marriage of 4 men with a man. That is the reverse of poligamy, one man for 4 women as Islam permits.
   *]free love: any combination will do.
   
   It is enough. Sincerely I do not feel like finding reasons for all of these articles.
   For homosexuality either.
   It is not because it is not.
   Because The Boss does not want. And it is The Boss who sets the rules.
   The Boss left the rules on the Bible and with His Pilote, the Pope.

 

[Allegra]

I have been reading a lot about the Catholic viewpoint that defense of the family is the real issue regarding gay marriage. I’m on board with that. In any Catholic group, institution, college, parish, etc. we have the right to call it as we see it.

How do I transfer that viewpoint to others in the USA? In other words, in the U.S. there is an expectation or view which holds that as long as one doesn’t harm another, he/she is allowed the freedom to do as they like. “It’s a free country.” Why should I try to enact a law that is restrictive of ANY behavior that doesn’t cause direct, obvious harm to another?

While I don’t think homosexual behavior is morally correct, why should I try try to interfere with people who choose live that way? How does that behavior become my concern? Isn’t it the right of everyone in America to think, believe, and act as they choose as long as they don’t harm others? As a Catholic-American, do I have a duty to try to prevent legal gay-marriage?

Can anyone help me on this question?

Glennonite

Homosexuals already have the right to think and do what they want. If the question was simply, should homosexual acts be illegal, then I think you would have a point. But that is not what is at stake here. The pro-homosexuality cause is aggressively attempting to do exactly what they claim others are doing to them. (Making it illegal to disagree.)

They want to use the legal system to force indoctrination of their beliefs that homosexuality is moral and valid on everyone else. They want laws passed which declare their sexual choices to be a “marriage”, in order to force companies which provide insurance and other benefits to treat them the same as a married couple. (Even if that private insurance company opposes the sinfulness of their lifestyle.) They want public schools to be forced to indoctrinate children with their beliefs, despite the fact that most of the children’s families and most of the teachers themselves find their views reprehensible. They want to make it illegal for anyone who doesn’t agree with them to run a tax-funded business, officiate a marriage or adoption, or speak their beliefs in public. How is this in the interest of freedom?

 

[sw85]

I have been reading a lot about the Catholic viewpoint that defense of the family is the real issue regarding gay marriage. I’m on board with that. In any Catholic group, institution, college, parish, etc. we have the right to call it as we see it.

How do I transfer that viewpoint to others in the USA? In other words, in the U.S. there is an expectation or view which holds that as long as one doesn’t harm another, he/she is allowed the freedom to do as they like. “It’s a free country.” Why should I try to enact a law that is restrictive of ANY behavior that doesn’t cause direct, obvious harm to another?

While I don’t think homosexual behavior is morally correct, why should I try try to interfere with people who choose live that way? How does that behavior become my concern? Isn’t it the right of everyone in America to think, believe, and act as they choose as long as they don’t harm others? As a Catholic-American, do I have a duty to try to prevent legal gay-marriage?

Can anyone help me on this question?

Glennonite

I think you have the issue backwards with re: to the law. We promulgate laws because they serve the common good. We don’t really outlaw “gay marriage” (in the legal sense) because marriage is a legal institution in the first place – we simply don’t draw the lines wide enough to include same-sex couples.

The reason we don’t do that is that marriage law serves a purpose: it provides a legal framework within which couples can exercise the duties and privileges attendant on their marriage, i.e., procreation. Heterosexual procreation in principle produces children, and the care and disposition of children is a matter of public interest. This is not true of homosexual sex acts and therefore their sex acts are not a matter of public interest.

So really the question isn’t “why shouldn’t we have gay marriage?” but “why should we?” Again, law is promulgated because it serves the common good – so a compelling public interest must be advanced in defense of the promotion of any law.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Heterosexual procreation in principle produces children, and the care and disposition of children is a matter of public interest.

In principle? what is that suppossed to mean?
It can not mean that All heterosexual couples produce children, for we know this to be false. So could you please elaborate on this principle?

 

[Glennonite]

Thanks to all who have responded so far. I must say that I haven’t found anything yet compelling me to restrict these people…

I still think that homosexual behavior is an issue of freedom to associate. If two people want to live together in the privacy of their home, so what? If they want to think of themselves as married, so what? If they further “get married”,…so what?

I would truely feel uncomfortable with the concept of the above. But if I expect the freedoms to do as I want in America, I must also recognize that I have to allow others the same. That’s the trade-off in a society that sings songs about freedom, and libery, and individualism.

I want folks to know that I am only asking this question in the context of the American value of liberty. My power of voting should be used wisely. I do not want to savagely curtail another’s life(style) without a sound reason. My merely personal (moral) view, should not cause me to force others to comply.

I’m thankful to all who respond.

Glennonite

 

[Glennonite]

The reason we don’t do that is that marriage law serves a purpose: it provides a legal framework within which couples can exercise the duties and privileges attendant on their marriage, i.e., procreation. Heterosexual procreation in principle produces children, and the care and disposition of children is a matter of public interest. This is not true of homosexual sex acts and therefore their sex acts are not a matter of public interest.

So really the question isn’t “why shouldn’t we have gay marriage?” but “why should we?”

Is marriage law really all about procreation? Surely folks have been “gettin’ hitched” only for love (or $$) forever. I’m thinking about elderly couples who find eachother late in life, or people who know they are biologically unable to produce children.

At any rate, if there are no children issueing from any marriage, why would the government (marriage law) care? No kids, one less thing for the legal system to deal with.

As to your second question: I guess my answer would be, “Because some folks want to get married. Where’s the harm?”

Glennonite

 

[lutherlic]

Thanks to all who have responded so far. I must say that I haven’t found anything yet compelling me to restrict these people…

I still think that homosexual behavior is an issue of freedom to associate. If two people want to live together in the privacy of their home, so what? If they want to think of themselves as married, so what? If they further “get married”,…so what?

I would truely feel uncomfortable with the concept of the above. But if I expect the freedoms to do as I want in America, I must also recognize that I have to allow others the same. That’s the trade-off in a society that sings songs about freedom, and libery, and individualism.

I want folks to know that I am only asking this question in the context of the American value of liberty. My power of voting should be used wisely. I do not want to savagely curtail another’s life(style) without a sound reason. My merely personal (moral) view, should not cause me to force others to comply.

I’m thankful to all who respond.

Glennonite

From this logic, you must also be pro-polygamy. Frankly, a much stronger case can be made for polygamy than homosexuality.

Also, pro-prostitution would fit your argument. There should also be no restriction on drug use either, right?

 

[Glennonite]

From this logic, you must also be pro-polygamy. Frankly, a much stronger case can be made for polygamy than homosexuality.

Also, pro-prostitution would fit your argument. There should also be no restriction on drug use either, right?

Yes, exactly. It’s interesting that you saw clearly that the same view can be applied to polygamy. I’m aware that there are polygamist-families and from time-to-time the news reports that a local DA prosecutes those involved. While polygamy is not something I would find rewarding, I wonder why folks don’t simply live their lives as such without the formal marriage(s). I think the term is “common-law marriage”…living together.

As far as drug-use, I agree with the old American attitude that was prominant before the early 20th century: Americans believed that each had a right to ingest whatever they wanted as freemen in a “free society”. (Adults, that is.) But we digress.

I’m not arguing the morality of these situations, (homosexual behaviors, gay marriage, polygamy, drug use, etc.) I’m really wanting to know the logic which would cause me to restrict (by law) others who choose to become…gayly-married.

For me, this all turns on the American concept of a free-society. Bottom-line: do I have a duty as a Catholic to restrict other Americans’ behaviors that cause no harm to anyone?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Glennonite

 

[Glennonite]

They want to make it illegal for anyone who doesn’t agree with them to run a tax-funded business, officiate a marriage or adoption, or speak their beliefs in public. How is this in the interest of freedom?

Thanks for your response. I’m unclear as to what you meant here. I wouldn’t want folks to be bound under the law as to their opinions or whether they had to perform services for those with whom they disagreed. Don’t businesses have a “right to refuse service to anyone”?

Glennonite

 

[sw85]

In principle? what is that suppossed to mean?
It can not mean that All heterosexual couples produce children, for we know this to be false. So could you please elaborate on this principle?

No, “in principle” does not refer to each and every couple, nor does it refer to any specific couple, any more than my saying “In principle people have four limbs” means I’m talking about each and every person having four limbs. In both cases I am referring simply to a norm arising from nature.

Is marriage law really all about procreation?

Yep.

Surely folks have been “gettin’ hitched” only for love (or $$) forever.

And the vast majority of those people go on to have kids, which is the purpose of marriage.

I’m thinking about elderly couples who find eachother late in life, or people who know they are biologically unable to produce children.

Doesn’t matter. Again, we’re concerned with the principle of procreation, meaning without respect to individual exemptions.

Think of it this way. If we use fertility as a basis for marriage then it would be necessary for the state to make a determination regarding fertility. It can do this either by setting an age limit (which would be arbitrary and therefore unjust) or by subjecting couples to intrusive medical examinations (which, by virtue of their intrusiveness, would also be unjust).

At any rate, if there are no children issueing from any marriage, why would the government (marriage law) care? No kids, one less thing for the legal system to deal with.

The converse of this question is, why would you want to get married if you don’t want to have kids?

As to your second question: I guess my answer would be, “Because some folks want to get married. Where’s the harm?”

Again, we promote laws because they serve the common good. That something doesn’t harm the common good isn’t a good enough reason to promote it.

 

[sw85]

Thanks to all who have responded so far. I must say that I haven’t found anything yet compelling me to restrict these people…

That it’s a sin isn’t sufficient?

I still think that homosexual behavior is an issue of freedom to associate. If two people want to live together in the privacy of their home, so what? If they want to think of themselves as married, so what? If they further “get married”,…so what?

Marriage goes a good deal beyond “freedom to associate”; it represents a POSITIVE ENDORSEMENT of an explicit sexual union. That endorsement makes sense in the context of heterosexual marriage because it is intrinsically procreative; what is the rationale for extending it to homosexual couples?

I would truely feel uncomfortable with the concept of the above. But if I expect the freedoms to do as I want in America, I must also recognize that I have to allow others the same. That’s the trade-off in a society that sings songs about freedom, and libery, and individualism.

I see you list your religion as Roman Catholic. If society compelled you to choose between your commitment to God and your commitment to “freedom, liberty, and individualism,” which would you choose?

At any rate, freedom is not at issue here. In a real sense, it’s everyone else’s freedom that is at stake, since homosexual couples are demanding that the government extract from them resources to be directed toward themselves – for no compelling public purpose other than that they think have a right to them.

I want folks to know that I am only asking this question in the context of the American value of liberty.

You should be asking it in the context of the Catholic value of the virtue of chastity.

My power of voting should be used wisely. I do not want to savagely curtail another’s life(style) without a sound reason. My merely personal (moral) view, should not cause me to force others to comply.

Homosexuals’ rights are in no way curtailed by present marriage law. In fact their marriage rights are identical to mine – we must all marry someone of the opposite sex.

 

[TimothyH]

America is not a free country. There are rules which prevent people from doing things that may not directly harm others becuse, quite simply, our nation is founded on Christian principals, and those principals don’t allow us to permit people we love to harm themselves.

We can argue about whether homosexuality harms anyone, or harms the person engaging in the behavior, but we cannot argue that Americal is a “Free country” in that people can do whatever they want. There is a notion of the greater good and shared sacrifice, and we all, as God’s chilren, have a responsibility to each other.

If I sat in my room and drank tequila all day and claimed that it doesn’t hurt anyone, I would still hope that someone would try to stop me.

-Tim-

 

[Glennonite]

That it’s a sin isn’t sufficient?

Marriage goes a good deal beyond “freedom to associate”; it represents a POSITIVE ENDORSEMENT of an explicit sexual union. That endorsement makes sense in the context of heterosexual marriage because it is intrinsically procreative; what is the rationale for extending it to homosexual couples?

I see you list your religion as Roman Catholic. If society compelled you to choose between your commitment to God and your commitment to “freedom, liberty, and individualism,” which would you choose?

At any rate, freedom is not at issue here. In a real sense, it’s everyone else’s freedom that is at stake, since homosexual couples are demanding that the government extract from them resources to be directed toward themselves – for no compelling public purpose other than that they think have a right to them.

You should be asking it in the context of the Catholic value of the virtue of chastity.

Homosexuals’ rights are in no way curtailed by present marriage law. In fact their marriage rights are identical to mine – we must all marry someone of the opposite sex.

You seem pretty sure of your opinions. I could do without the sass. I’m still not seeing the motivation (from a moral duty) to vote against these folks on this matter. I’m still not seeing the harm to others. I have to allow people to decide for themselves, the morality of their own actions. Unless those actions are harming others, Americans should have the right to pursue whatever makes the happy.

Glennonite

 

[edwest2]

From the Catholic Church:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[sw85]

You seem pretty sure of your opinions. I could do without the sass. I’m still not seeing the motivation (from a moral duty) to vote against these folks on this matter. I’m still not seeing the harm to others. I have to allow people to decide for themselves, the morality of their own actions. Unless those actions are harming others, Americans should have the right to pursue whatever makes the happy.

Glennonite

I don’t mean to sass you.

You have a moral duty not to endorse the sins of others, from a purely Catholic standpoint. From a civil standpoint, “there’s no harm” is not a sufficient basis to promote a law – there must be a compelling public interest to justify it.

As you said gays are already free to go around saying they’re married. But to become actually married involves the attachment of certain legal and financial benefits. If the state is to become involved in the disposition of a relationship, there ought to be a compelling reason for them to do so. That reason, for heterosexual couples, is procreation (and the interest is so compelling that you need not even necessarily be married for the state to become involved, at least in some respects). There is no such reason to get involved in homosexual unions.

 

[RosaryFan]

I have been reading a lot about the Catholic viewpoint that defense of the family is the real issue regarding gay marriage. I’m on board with that. In any Catholic group, institution, college, parish, etc. we have the right to call it as we see it.

How do I transfer that viewpoint to others in the USA? In other words, in the U.S. there is an expectation or view which holds that as long as one doesn’t harm another, he/she is allowed the freedom to do as they like. “It’s a free country.” Why should I try to enact a law that is restrictive of ANY behavior that doesn’t cause direct, obvious harm to another?

While I don’t think homosexual behavior is morally correct, why should I try try to interfere with people who choose live that way? How does that behavior become my concern? Isn’t it the right of everyone in America to think, believe, and act as they choose as long as they don’t harm others? As a Catholic-American, do I have a duty to try to prevent legal gay-marriage?

Can anyone help me on this question?

Glennonite

First of all, homosexual marriage DOES do harm to others. It is harmful to society. Most people, regardless of their religious beliefs, would shield their child from watching two men (or women) kiss on the street corner or on television. I’m sure many wouldn’t admit that, but if you feel the need to shield your children from something that is being done on a street corner, then it is harmful to society. Much the same way you would shield your children from watching someone shooting up heroine - harmful to society.

Second, until the phsycial union of two body parts from members of the same sex can produce a child, then they shouldn’t be able to “marry”. The purpose of marriage in society is to create a HEALTHY environment for bringing forth children in order to insure the continuity of our species. Two members of the same sex cannot accomplish this. Neither can a man and his dog, which, I suppose, is why a man is not allowed to marry his dog (not yet, anyway).

In my opinion, you can argue against gay marriage without even bringing religion into the picture.

 

[Allegra]

Thanks for your response. I’m unclear as to what you meant here. I wouldn’t want folks to be bound under the law as to their opinions or whether they had to perform services for those with whom they disagreed. Don’t businesses have a “right to refuse service to anyone”?

Glennonite

Businesses do not have a right to refuse service to anyone. They have a right to refuse service to people for certain reasons. For example, if a man came into a gun shop slobering drunk and screaming enraged threats and obsenities about his neighbor, it would be reasonable for the shop keeper to refuse to sell him amo for his shotgun. However, if a man came into a cafe and ordered food, the waiter could not refuse him service because he is black unless he wanted to be in trouble with the law. Race is protected by law in our country.

Those who promote the homosexual agenda want their sexual actions to be protected as well. They do not want priests or clergymen who will not recognize their lifestyle as marriage to be allowed to preside over any weddings. They do not want adoption agencies who will not place children with them to be allowed to have an operational licence. They do not want private companies who will not rent out their rooms for their “marriage ceremonies” to be allowed to rent rooms to anyone else. They want to force school teachers to teach their agenda to everyone’s children. In essence, they want to legally silence all detractors and stuff their views down everyone else’s throat.