Gay "marriage" question for CATHOLICS

[albertus_magnus]

So you think there should be NO laws, right? It’s not particularly marriage laws that bother you, then, right? You don’t like governments and don’t like laws. I get it. It’s at odds with Catholic teaching, but you already knew that…

My two ideal countries would be:

1. Anarchy

or

1. Catholic Theocracy

 

[Faithdancer]

Catholic Theocracy

NOW we’re talkin! :dancing::bounce:

 

[markeverett49]

My two ideal countries would be:

1. Anarchy

or

1. Catholic Theocracy

This suggests to me that you understand neither.

 

[Faithdancer]

I am saying that there are many nonsacramental valid marriages. The protection of marriage is not exclusively about scaramental marriages. It is about all marriages.

Marriage has always existed. Mary and Joseph had a valid marriage, but not sacramental. As you say Christ elevated it to a sacrament, but that is not only what the Church is defending.

Thanks for clarifying, fix. Protection of marriage as an institution solely between one man and one woman. (I thought it best to be number as well as gender-specific!).

 

[philial]

As a fellow Brit I can sympathize with Albertus’ position. Back in the day, politics involved parties that were idealogically separable. However, since Thatcher’s day all parties have moved to the centre, into a sort of bland middle class niceness that doesn’t really believe in anything of any depth, much less discuss it! The Media is happy to go along with this as most support the libertarian position, even the Tory papers such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, etc… As a consequence it is extremely hard to support any of the main parties, while some of the minor ones, while interesting, will never attract voters.

I fully agree that the state should not be defining marriage, nor regulating it. If two people want to call themselves married, then let them do so! What business is it of anyone else, except your own community?

 

[Faithdancer]

I’m hoping that the alleged “majority” of CAF Catholics who support gay “marriage” will comment as well, that was a main reason for starting the separate thread. Well, it’s early yet…

(sorry, I just have to put the word marriage in quotes when it’s preceded by the word gay. I know its prejudicial…)

 

[albertus_magnus]

What’s wrong with anarchist catholicism anyway?

 

[albertus_magnus]

What’s wrong with anarchist catholicism anyway?

Never mind, I’ll make a separate thread.

 

[Befink]

Good question,

I’m a practicing Catholic who supports legal marriage of same sex couples, so guessing you want to hear my thoughts.

As far as I’ve ever identified, their are two official teachings of the Church regarding homosexuality:

1. The act is sinful
2. The Sacrament of Marriage must between a man and a women (fitting the 3-part definition you have been discussing)

Regarding the act, the vast majority of their practices fall under the definition of fornication which straights are expected to observe as well. Suppose a gay couple didn’t practice at all but loved each other and lived together. They are within teachings. If a gay couple attends Church together we would automatically assume they are committing the act and judge them negatively. While probably true, it’s not our job to judge them. Instead we need to welcome them like every other sinner/Church-goer.

Regarding marriage. Any officiant has the right to marry or not marry a couple for any reason. Religious freedom means Catholics and any other religious organization have the right to make the statement “we don’t believe your marriage is valid in the eyes of God and therefore won’t perform your wedding”. The problem is that the term “marriage” has been secularized to the point that many in society see it as a legal term only, meaning our 3-part Catholic definition does not apply. Some tried to compromise by allowing same-sex “civil unions” but not calling them marriage. Neither side is happy with that. To be against civil unions/legal marriage, one must use legal and social arguments only and those tend to be weak which is why they often get struck down in court as discriminatory. There are concerns about children being raised by gay parents which are not bearing out in scientific studies (particularly when considering the alternative is often the foster system). There are concerns about weakening the institution of marriage. While I agree that society is having a major problem with the value of marriage, I don’t think it’s fair to blame gays for it. A large number of straight couples struggle to respect marriage as they should to the detriment of their children and themselves. They could learn a thing or two from some of the gay couples I know.

Hope that helps

 

[mab23]

*I think we respect Gay people, but their union, is not marriage, first of all. Then, their “intercourse” is SINFUL so therefore, it is not permitted to “marry” a gay person. *

This!

 

[livelife4god]

the way i look at it is this…

Adam and Eve were man and woman…hence producing family…reproductive…

the holy family Joseph and Mary and Jesus…hence family of male and female…family

the first couple God created for his mission was man and woman…

then shown us how the family should live in the holy family of Jesus,Mary and Joseph…

the government should mind there own business and let the moral natural law live…

my opinion…

 

[Joe_5859]

I firmly believe that getting the government out of the marriage business altogether is one of the worst thigns we could do. It simply plays into the hands of the gay agenda to normalize homosexual relationships as it privatizes the family and puts everyone on the same playing field.

I understand the sentiment to want the government to get out of our business. They certainly do bungle a lot of things they try to do. But marriage is not a private thing. My marriage is no more a matter solely between “my spouse and me” than my religion is a matter solely between “my God and me”. There are significant and important ramifications in the wider community and society at large. The government has an obligation to protect and defend the common good. This requires that they protect and defend marriage as it truly is (not as we may wish it to be).

 

[Myqyl]

From the Catechism :

"Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 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."

While we are called not to BE homosexuals, we are also told that " Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. "...  Is it unjust to deny them access to visit thier loved one in the hospital as they are dying?  Is it unjust to deny health insurance to them?  Is it unjust to tax them unfairly?  Is it unjust to deny them the literally 1000+ benefits that my wife and I receive under the law?  It seems the Church is calling upon us to ask and answer these questions.

I don't know the answer, but these are legitamite questions.

God bless

 

[sedonaman]

I firmly believe that getting the government out of the marriage business altogether is one of the worst thigns we could do. It simply plays into the hands of the gay agenda to normalize homosexual relationships as it privatizes the family and puts everyone on the same playing field.

I understand the sentiment to want the government to get out of our business. They certainly do bungle a lot of things they try to do. But marriage is not a private thing. My marriage is no more a matter solely between “my spouse and me” than my religion is a matter solely between “my God and me”. There are significant and important ramifications in the wider community and society at large. The government has an obligation to protect and defend the common good. This requires that they protect and defend marriage as it truly is (not as we may wish it to be).

:clapping:

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met. – “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage” – tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

Also see, “A Secular Argument Against Gay Marriage” – the-american-catholic.com/2010/09/07/a-secular-argument-against-gay-marriage/

 

[KCT]

Gay marriage doesn’t exist.

Do you mean homosexual unions?

 

[sedonaman]

Gay marriage doesn’t exist.

Do you mean homosexual unions?

If that is a question for me, it would be against the rules of the forum for me to call it what I really think.

 

[fix]

While we are called not to BE homosexuals, we are also told that " Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. "… Is it unjust to deny them access to visit thier loved one in the hospital as they are dying? Is it unjust to deny health insurance to them? Is it unjust to tax them unfairly? Is it unjust to deny them the literally 1000+ benefits that my wife and I receive under the law? It seems the Church is calling upon us to ask and answer these questions.

I don’t know the answer, but these are legitamite questions.

God bless

Here is what the Vatican says:

1. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.

1. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

1. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.

1. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homo- sexuality (cf. no. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person’s homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

1. The “sexual orientation” of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual’s sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.

SOME CONSIDERATIONS
CONCERNING THE RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
ON THE NON-DISCRIMINATION OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS*

 

[Lancer]

While I don’t “support” gay marriage (especially so under the current modus operandi of the state), I do believe the government should not regulate marriage.

There are some religions that believe gay marriages to exist confused, and I think it would be a violation of religious freedom for the government to interfere.

After all, as far as I know the Catholic Church doesn’t demand that protestants be prohibited from aping the Holy Communion although that’s one of the seven sacraments.

The government is involved in marriage policy/regulation…for one simple reason…to promote the “common good”…it’s base mission for our civil society…because marriage is the fundamental basis for the continual good and well being of any society…that is a fact from God…a natural law he made before governments existed.

Just look at our society and the results on no-fault divorce and extramarital or out-of-wedlock births…the fact that 41% of all children born ins USA are outside of marriage (2009)…that is not an insignificant number…and society pays for that in many, many ways…none of which helps or fosters the common good. Add into the mix sperm banks and surrogate mother “industries”… Petrie-dish children…and the deep dark hole gets deeper and darker. (common sense rule #1: when you are in a deep dark hole…the first order of business is to stop digging!)

All social studies have consistently said that the best interest of the child and society is for a child to be born into a married couple family who stay together to raise and teach that child to be a productive member of society. Exceptions to this happen…for many reasons…but you don’t make policy for the common good based on exceptions…which has been the U.S.Gov’s modus operandi for decades…when is the last time you have heard anyone in government say or do anything publicly and explicitly that promotes marriage and raising children in a marriage bonded family…per the social studies…which government usually pays for with government grant tax dollars.

Like Oliver said to Stanley…

Oliver Hardy: Well, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into…
Stanley Laurel: But I couldn’t help it…

Extramarital births
The proportion of children born outside marriage is rising in all EU countries, the USA, and Australia.[9] In Europe, besides the low levels of fertility rates and the delay of motherhood, another factor that now characterizes fertility is the growing percentage of live births outside marriage. In the EU, this phenomenon has been on the rise in recent years in almost every country and in seven countries, mostly in northern Europe, it already accounts for the majority of live births.[10]
In 2009, 41% of children born in the United States were born to unmarried mothers (up from 5% a half-century ago). That includes 73% of non-Hispanic black children, **53% of Hispanic children **and 29% of non-Hispanic white children.[11][12] In April 2009, the National Center for Health Statistics announced that nearly 40 percent of American infants born in 2007 were borne by an unwed mother; that of 4.3 million children, 1.7 million were born to unmarried parents, a 25 percent increase from 2002.****[13] The percentage born extramaritally increased 21% during 2002–2007, reaching at 1,714,643 in 2007 (or nearly 4 in 10 U.S. births).[8] Most births to teenagers in USA (86% in 2007) are nonmarital, 60% of births to women 20–24 and nearly one-third of births to women 25–29 were nonmarital in 2007.[8] Teenagers accounted for just 23% of nonmarital births in 2007, down steeply from 50% in 1970.[8]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(law)

Holy Communion vis-a-vis Catholics and Protestants…is not a civic common good…it is strictly a faith/religion matter…“apples and oranges” in my mind…IMHO.

Pax Christi

 

[fix]

Good question,

I’m a practicing Catholic who supports legal marriage of same sex couples, so guessing you want to hear my thoughts.

As far as I’ve ever identified, their are two official teachings of the Church regarding homosexuality:

1. The act is sinful
2. The Sacrament of Marriage must between a man and a women (fitting the 3-part definition you have been discussing)

Regarding the act, the vast majority of their practices fall under the definition of fornication which straights are expected to observe as well. Suppose a gay couple didn’t practice at all but loved each other and lived together. They are within teachings. If a gay couple attends Church together we would automatically assume they are committing the act and judge them negatively. While probably true, it’s not our job to judge them. Instead we need to welcome them like every other sinner/Church-goer.

Regarding marriage. Any officiant has the right to marry or not marry a couple for any reason. Religious freedom means Catholics and any other religious organization have the right to make the statement “we don’t believe your marriage is valid in the eyes of God and therefore won’t perform your wedding”. The problem is that the term “marriage” has been secularized to the point that many in society see it as a legal term only, meaning our 3-part Catholic definition does not apply. Some tried to compromise by allowing same-sex “civil unions” but not calling them marriage. Neither side is happy with that. To be against civil unions/legal marriage, one must use legal and social arguments only and those tend to be weak which is why they often get struck down in court as discriminatory. There are concerns about children being raised by gay parents which are not bearing out in scientific studies (particularly when considering the alternative is often the foster system). There are concerns about weakening the institution of marriage. While I agree that society is having a major problem with the value of marriage, I don’t think it’s fair to blame gays for it. A large number of straight couples struggle to respect marriage as they should to the detriment of their children and themselves. They could learn a thing or two from some of the gay couples I know.

Hope that helps

There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)

Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

 

[Allegra]

This smacks of modernism. The government regulates marriage because of its public purpose, which most people here are not aware of.

The government has supported traditional marriage for centuries because traditional marriage has many benefits to society at large. Gay marriage does not provide those benefits to society and forcing individuals to call something a marriage that has never been considered a marriage before. (Particularly since it violates their moral and religious beliefs.) My first choice would be to leave things as they are. Traditional families are good for our country. However, if in order to be “fair”, it requires that individuals and organization are required to violate their consciences and recognize something that is totally fake and morally repugnant, then my second choice would be that marriage is no longer recognized by the government at all.