Gay Marriage in America

[Elizabeth502]

Yes, I already did. The teaching that gay adoptions are banned by the Catholic faith (assuming it can even be said to be a teaching of the Church) is not infallible.

You are confusing uniform policies with teachings or doctrine. Policies (of Catholic Church organizations, such as adoption agencies and hospitals) are based on teachings. In turn, the moral teachings of the Church derive from Moral Absolutes, not moral relativisms such as some of what is being promoted on this very thread).

 

[SwizzleStick]

If homosexuals tell me what truth is or what is wrong I will invariably give a different answer than what they have just provided. Why is their opinion more valid than mine? Am I a second-class citizen somehow?

Well, that depends. Are you a conservative and a Christian?



Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

 

[TMC]

You are confusing uniform policies with teachings or doctrine. Policies (of Catholic Church organizations, such as adoption agencies and hospitals) are based on teachings. In turn, the moral teachings of the Church derive from Moral Absolutes, not moral relativisms such as some of what is being promoted on this very thread).

That has nothing to do with whether this particular teaching (that gay couples should not adopt children) whether called a policy or a doctrine, is infallible or not. That was the question put to me. The answer is that it is not infallible.

 

[LittleSoldier]

No, that is not correct. Certain Church teachings on faith and morals are said to be infallible. We generally call those teachings dogma. Other teachings on faith and morals are not considered infallible, we generally call them doctrines. The Church has described what makes something infallible, but has consistently declined to put out a list of what is infallible and what is not (which I personally believe to be a wise decision). As a result, there is much debate about which is which. The only reason it matters in the context of this discussion, is that it was suggested that saying the Church’s stance on some issues is discriminatory is somehow a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. To defend that ridiculous claim, it was further claimed that everything that the Church teaches is infallible, and therefore directly from the Holy Spirit - so saying it is wrong or discriminatory is an attack on God Himself. We are getting pretty far afield from the actual topic here, but it remains the fact that not everything taught by the Church is taught infallibly. That should be obvious to anyone that has taken even a cursory look at the history of the Church and noticed that teachings do change from time to time - which could not be the case if all teachings were infallible.

I believe you are correct, although I don’t have anything to back me up (and please remember that I am the most poorly catechized revert in the world). Only some teachings on faith and morals are infallible. As far as I know only one teaching has been stated ex cathedra, although there are infallible teachings that existed long before the process of *ex cathedra *was put into place. I think it is the Immaculate Conception that is the only *ex cathedra *teaching.

The Church, *as the Body of Christ, *is certainly infallible. But statements made by the Church may not reflect infallible teachings.

However, we are still required to bow to the authority of the Magisterium. The Magisterium has made it clear that homosexual activity is sinful.

I don’t understand why this is so difficult to understand.

 

[TMC]

I believe you are correct, although I don’t have anything to back me up (and please remember that I am the most poorly catechized revert in the world). Only some teachings on faith and morals are infallible. As far as I know only one teaching has been stated ex cathedra, although there are infallible teachings that existed long before the process of *ex cathedra *was put into place. I think it is the Immaculate Conception that is the only *ex cathedra *teaching.

The Church, *as the Body of Christ, *is certainly infallible. But statements made by the Church may not reflect infallible teachings.

However, we are still required to bow to the authority of the Magisterium. The Magisterium has made it clear that homosexual activity is sinful.

I don’t understand why this is so difficult to understand.

I don’t find it difficult to understand, I agree with everything that you said in this post, except that I think that the Assumption of Mary may fall into the same category as the Immaculate Conception. BTW, I was not the one that started this long divergence into the topic of infallibility - I am just responding to questions put to me by others.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Well, that depends. Are you a conservative and a Christian?



Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

I don’t blame you for not being able to resist. But I’m not a conservative so I think that means I may or may not be a second-class citizen, depending on the circumstances.

 

[sedonaman]

I didn’t say right, I said right or privilege. I think marriage is a right, others consider it a privilege. Either way, its hard to deny its being denied to gay people in most states.

No it isn’t hard to deny it. You don’t think a child has a right to be raised by a mother and father, so I deny homosexuals have any kind of “right” or “privilege” to “marry”.

 

[TMC]

No it isn’t hard to deny it. You don’t think a child has a right to be raised by a mother and father, so I deny homosexuals have any kind of “right” or “privilege” to “marry”.

OK, so you admit that you want to deny gays the privilege of marrying? But you don’t want to justify why that is OK?

 

[LittleSoldier]

I don’t find it difficult to understand, I agree with everything that you said in this post, except that I think that the Assumption of Mary may fall into the same category as the Immaculate Conception. BTW, I was not the one that started this long divergence into the topic of infallibility - I am just responding to questions put to me by others.

I believe the Assumption of Mary was proclaimed as an infallible teaching before (but not long before) the process of *ex cathedra *was put into place. But I’ve read several times that it is also an *ex cathedra *statement. I think it’s one of those little points that would take too long to research than it’s worth for the purposes of this thread. It’s an infallible teaching whether *ex cathedra *or not.

I know the thread has been mostly derailed and I’m not quite sure how it happened but I think it was inevitable. And actually infallibility and the authority of the Magisterium may be the key to finding the answer to the question of why homosexual marriage is wrong.

 

[SwizzleStick]

I don’t blame you for not being able to resist. But I’m not a conservative so I think that means I may or may not be a second-class citizen, depending on the circumstances.

I think just being a Catholic might do it.

Yes, I’m kidding. Sort of. The way things are going, who knows?

 

[Elizabeth502]

That has nothing to do with whether this particular teaching (that gay couples should not adopt children) whether called a policy or a doctrine, is infallible or not. That was the question put to me. The answer is that it is not infallible.

But it’s a technicality, because the undergirding of the policy is the moral absolute that homosexual activity is always and everywhere sinful, regardless of any other personal virtue or terrific citizenship portrayed by the couple in question. An absolute is an absolute: it is not subject to question, dispute, validation. It means it cannot change.

The term “infallibility” is a technical term which pertains to the papacy and certain formal statements therefrom. But the fact that the entire Catechism is not technically a papal proclamation is immaterial. The teachings therein are just as binding (absolute, not relative, not changeable), because the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith proceeds, and gets its power to teach, from the Pope’s authority. And his is the ultimate human authority of the Church, guided by the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.

If this weren’t true, Catholics would only be obliged to adhere to a handful (and they are a handful) of “infallible” statements, with everything else (Our Confession of Faith in the Creed, even) being up for autonomous speculation & whim. Throughout Church history, the various Councils have affirmed and reaffirmed certain core teachings of the Church, which are also not subject to change even when not a rare “infallible papal statement.”

The Roman Church refuses to witness to the intrinsic evil of homosexual activity (a moral absolute) by cooperating with adoption procedures of such couples.

 

[sedonaman]

I believe you are correct, although I don’t have anything to back me up (and please remember that I am the most poorly catechized revert in the world). Only some teachings on faith and morals are infallible.

Just because something has not been declared “infallible” ex cathedra doesn’t mean Catholics can choose to reject it.

For anyone who professes to be Catholic, their faith requires them to believe certain teachings with “divine and Catholic faith”. No amount of personal opinion, “conscientious objection”, or personal desires can excuse them from acting contrary to a defined dogma of the Catholic Church. Certain dogmas such as Christ’s resurrection, the Trinity of God, redemption of sin, belief in heaven and hell and other such dogmas are regarded as pillars of the faith. These teachings cannot be abandoned without simultaneously abandoning the Catholic faith. The church exists to teach men the truth and aid them in attaining salvation through the graces given by Christ’s death and resurrection. Dogmatic teachings are absolutely needed by the faithful so that they can attain salvation. The need for dogmatic teachings is necessary because without them the faithful do not know what is required to gain everlasting life. That is why the Church has the right and the duty to define what we are required to believe in matters of faith and morals.
…
Dogmas and definitions of faith and morals are explicitly promulgated by a Church Ecumenical Council convened or endorsed by the pope (such as the Council of Trent, First Vatican Council, and Vatican Council II) or by a pope in an encyclical letter. Yet, not all statements given by a council or a pope are considered dogmatic decrees. Only those statements which fulfill the following three conditions:

1. 
   *] The decree is intended for belief by all the Church’s faithful
   *] The decree is related to a matter of faith and morals
   *] The decree comes from the pope when exercising his teaching authority as head of the Church or by a general Church council endorsed by the pope

1. 
   

   Dogmas are not new teachings added to the beliefs of the Church; rather they are refinements and clarifications of Church Traditions taught by Christ and the twelve apostles. Dogmas, Traditional teachings, and Sacred Scripture form the Deposit of Faith and constitute the faith of the Church. Explicit doctrines from the Deposit of Faith can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
   
   With a proper understanding of the role of Church teachings and practices, we can now properly address the Church’s stance on various matters of faith and morals.
   …
   Homosexuality

   Although it remains to be determined if homosexuality is a genetic, social, or personal stigma, homosexual acts are condemned by God and can never be approved by the Church (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Genesis 19:1-29, Romans 1:24-27 and CCC 2357). If homosexuals are born with the condition, then they are called to live a life of Christian purity and chastity for the greater love of Christ. Such people can experience a life of trial, which all others must treat with compassion and sensitivity.

   The act of homosexuality is a “sin that cries to heaven for vengeance (Gen 18:20)” because it separates the unity of sex between two spouses from the procreative element which is necessary to legitimize and bless a marriage. Homosexuality is unnatural because it embraces lust between same-sex partners over the purity of love in a Christian marriage. The Church teaches:
   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 (CCC 2359).
   “Church Teachings on Controversial Topics”
   saintaquinas.com/controversial.html

 

[Nate13]

Gay marriage will effect society in three ways:

1. It will offer a legal and society approved alternative to the promiscuous lifestyle that many gays currently follow. It is hard to condemn their lifestyle without offering another alternative than complete abstinence.
2. Allowing gay couples to adopt will provide an alternative to orphanages or foster care. I would rather see a child raised by two loving people than to be left alone in the state’s care.
3. The family unit is the bedrock of our society. Currenty this is led by a man & a woman, tied by legal and societal norms to raise children. Expanding this to same sex marriages would increase the number of family units with no negative impact on the original ones.

There is no legislation to be passed that will require the Church or any Catholic to recognize the gay marriage. It will require legal recognition by the State for all non-religous entities.

Evil always dangles good in front of you in order to get you to follow it to the poisoned water Some of your arguments are structured incredibly similarly to pro-choice arguments btw.

 

[sedonaman]

OK, so you admit that you want to deny gays the privilege of marrying? But you don’t want to justify why that is OK?

I’m waiting for you to make your case. “Their rights are being denied” is not a justification.

 

[Nate13]

Originally Posted by TMC View Post
OK, so you admit that you want to deny gays the privilege of marrying? But you don’t want to justify why that is OK?

Tax breaks are not rights. The government picks and chooses winners with the tax system all the time. Today you luck out if your in green energy. Tomorrow you might luck out if you own a llama farm.

 

[TMC]

I’m waiting for you to make your case. “Their rights are being denied” is not a justification.

I have done so. My position is that in a free society you have to justify denying one group of people a right or privilege that is accorded to the rest of society. As I understand it, your position is that you are free to deny rights and/or privileges to this particular group without providing a justification. Because we do not agree on which side bears the burden, I suppose we will not be able to resolve this difference. But I am certainly glad that our nation’s laws do not actually allow for groups to be denied rights and privileges based on the whims of the majority without providing any justification for doing so.

 

[sedonaman]

…
There is no legislation to be passed that will require the Church or any Catholic to recognize the gay marriage. It will require legal recognition by the State for all non-religous entities.

, LMAO. I put this statement in the same category as the one I heard 40 years ago: “All gays want is to be left alone.” We can see that promises like this are a fraud. Historian Paul Johnson [see post #663] gives a brief but good summary of what happened when society decided “to leave them alone.” How many times do you think society will fall for the same “Of-course-I’ll-respect-you-in-the-morning” line?

 

[michelleds]

I have done so. My position is that in a free society you have to justify denying one group of people a right or privilege that is accorded to the rest of society. As I understand it, your position is that you are free to deny rights and/or privileges to this particular group without providing a justification. Because we do not agree on which side bears the burden, I suppose we will not be able to resolve this difference. But I am certainly glad that our nation’s laws do not actually allow for groups to be denied rights and privileges based on the whims of the majority without providing any justification for doing so.

actually lots of people are denied the “right to marriage”…too young, incapable of consent, too closely related, wrong species. so, in essence, of all the classes of people who are denied the right to marriage, you want to pull out one small segment (only 1-3% of the population is homosexual; i’m sure a small percentage of that wants to get married), and make the rest of society answer to them.

The most compelling legal treatment of this issue would have to fall under the penumbra of the Equal Protection Clause.

the language for the Equal Protection Clause is this: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This language has been stretched by activist judges to include all sorts of things that strict Constitutionalists (and Catholics) would not and do not agree with. Of course, there is a string of cases that fell within the EPC that eventually moved the country from racist policies to Brown v Bd of Ed and beyond which is obviously of greatest good and benefit and morally required.

After proceeding thru an EPC analysis, one then must analyze all of that in relation to the 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”)

Now, after all of that, let me ask those of you who believe that us Catholics in compliance with the Magisterium should come to your side why are you so insistent that we give up our rights to contribute to the marketplace of ideas? Why do you wish to infringe on our Freedom of Religion? Would you ask the same of the LGBT folks?

You must surely understand that asking us to “change our minds” or “see your light” on these issues, would be in our worldview akin to denying our Church. We won’t do it. Period. Greater men and women than us have died horrible deaths refusing to deny God, Jesus and the Church.

This is not about sociology, psychology, social sciences, or legal analysis. It’s about a deep and abiding faith in God and the Church.

so now what? how will the world respond to the dissenting voices? already we are ridiculed, mocked (tornadoes in texas anyone?), and called hateful names. how will you best silence our voices?

 

[davidv]

I have done so. My position is that in a free society you have to justify denying one group of people a right or privilege that is accorded to the rest of society. As I understand it, your position is that you are free to deny rights and/or privileges to this particular group without providing a justification. Because we do not agree on which side bears the burden, I suppose we will not be able to resolve this difference. But I am certainly glad that our nation’s laws do not actually allow for groups to be denied rights and privileges based on the whims of the majority without providing any justification for doing so.

First you have demonstrate that any rights are being denied.

Heterosexual and Homosexual oriented persons are given the same priveleges and held to the same restrictions. What SS union advocates want is special treatment that is neither fair, nor moral.

 

[TMC]

actually lots of people are denied the “right to marriage”…too young, incapable of consent, too closely related, wrong species. so, in essence, of all the classes of people who are denied the right to marriage, you want to pull out one small segment (only 1-3% of the population is homosexual; i’m sure a small percentage of that wants to get married), and make the rest of society answer to them.

Each of the groups you name is denied the right to marriage for a specified reason. The argument being made by others here is that gay people can be denied this and other rights without articulating any reason except that they are gay. The mere fact that there are not many gay people is not a reason to deny them this right, quite the opposite. So what is the reason?

The most compelling legal treatment of this issue would have to fall under the penumbra of the Equal Protection Clause.

I agree that this is a compelling constitutional reason to give all people the same rights, yes.

the language for the Equal Protection Clause is this: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

This language has been stretched by activist judges to include all sorts of things that strict Constitutionalists (and Catholics) would not and do not agree with. Of course, there is a string of cases that fell within the EPC that eventually moved the country from racist policies to Brown v Bd of Ed and beyond which is obviously of greatest good and benefit and morally required.

Can you tell me how granting equal rights under the Equal Protection Clause has in the past conflicted with Catholic beliefs? No examples occur to me. I am glad you agree that Brown v Board was a good thing.

After proceeding thru an EPC analysis, one then must analyze all of that in relation to the 10th Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”)

Of course you must be aware that the 14th Amendment expressly applies to the states and that many other rights have been applied to the states through incorporation. That generally removes the Tenth from the analysis when it comes to enforcing equal rights. As to the right of states to define marriage - most pro-gay marriage people are all for that, it is the anti-gay rights crowd that wants to restrict the application of the tenth amendment here.

Now, after all of that, let me ask those of you who believe that us Catholics in compliance with the Magisterium should come to your side why are you so insistent that we give up our rights to contribute to the marketplace of ideas? Why do you wish to infringe on our Freedom of Religion? Would you ask the same of the LGBT folks?

This is a bizarre non-sequiter. No one is asking Catholics to give up their rights to free expression or to practice their religion. How do you get that? Where gay marriage is legal, the Catholic Chruch remains free to deny the sacrament of marriage to gay couples, and Catholics and others can continue to say whatever they want about that. The freedom of this group to marry does not infringe on the rights of Catholics in any way.

You must surely understand that asking us to “change our minds” or “see your light” on these issues, would be in our worldview akin to denying our Church. We won’t do it. Period. Greater men and women than us have died horrible deaths refusing to deny God, Jesus and the Church.

I have not asked anyone to change their mind on this issue. I have asked some to explain their position - which seems difficult for some to do. I have suggested that the beliefs of the Catholic Church in this area should not control civil law, anymore than Catholic teachings control the laws on divorce, for example.

This is not about sociology, psychology, social sciences, or legal analysis. It’s about a deep and abiding faith in God and the Church.

I agree that personal religious views are about faith, but extending those views to deny a class of people rights and privileges is a matter of legal analysis and social science.

so now what? how will the world respond to the dissenting voices? already we are ridiculed, mocked (tornadoes in texas anyone?), and called hateful names. how will you best silence our voices?

No one is trying to silence anyone. And why do you refer to yourself as a “dissenting voice”, when I am constantly being told that the majority does not favor gay rights? Which is it?