Gay "marriage" question for CATHOLICS

[sedonaman]

…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? …

When the issue of homosexuals routinely being denied the right to visit their partners in hospitals was raised during debate over the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, the Family Research Council did an informal survey of nine hospitals in four states and the District of Columbia. None of the administrators surveyed could recall a single case in which a visitor was barred because of their [sic] homosexuality, and they were incredulous that this would even be considered an issue.
Peter Sprigg, “What’s Wrong with Letting Same-Sex Couples Marry?” Family Research Council, In Focus: Issue No. 256.

A few years ago, my wife and I went to visit a friend who lay dying in hospice. When we walked in, we simply said that we were there to visit Mrs. So-and-so. We were immediately, if not sooner, escorted to her room. No one asked if we were members of her family; no one checked any list for our names. In fact, no one even asked our names. Like the Mathew Shepard case, this is probably based on a single isolated incident blown way out of proportion, sorta like taking one data point and extrapolating a whole universe. And now we are to restructure all of society to make sure it never happens again, even though it can be handled by the individuals themselves signing a single, simple statement.

Where on the IRS 1040 does it ask for your sexual orientation?

 

[sedonaman]

… my second choice would be that marriage is no longer recognized by the government at all.

Then what is owed the child?

 

[Allegra]

Then what is owed the child?

What is owed the child now? Parents are currently allowed to take tax credits in they have children, even if they aren’t married to the child’s other parent. I don’t understand your question. A child’s parents are their parents, regardless if they are married, not married, or married to other people.

 

[markeverett49]

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 their 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…

It is a requirement of justice to point out that same-sex couples cannot be real marriages. It would be UNJUST to treat same-sex couplings as equivalent to real marriages. Since same-sex couplings cannot be marriages, it is just that the benefits of real marriages not be given to same-sex couples. (The contrary claim is akin to saying it is discriminatory to provide child care only to people who actually HAVE children and that this is discrimination against childless couples. It is not.)

I have spent time as a hospital chaplain and never saw–or heard of–a ‘no gays allowed to visit’ policy. I doubt one exists.

 

[Julia_Mae]

(If you are not Catholic, sorry, but this thread doesn’t concern you)

I know there are a couple of threads on this subject currently running but they have a secular perspective and I want to know how Catholics can support gay “marriage,” given that marriage between a man and a woman is one of the seven Holy Sacraments and it seems that as Catholics we are required to uphold the seven Holy Sacraments. How can we even support gay “marriage” conducted in civil ceremonies or in other churches, if marriage is only sacramental when it is between a man and a woman?

I was talking with a moral theologian last night (starting his post-doc work), and he put it this way- from a Catholic doctrinal perspective, marriage must be:

1. uniting
2. complementary
3. procreative (i.e. physically procreative) or at least allowing of such (infertility happens)

He said that an argument may be advanced for gay “marriage” fulfilling requirement #1, but it is impossible to fulfill requirements 2 and 3, and all three must be fulfilled for the marriage to be sacramental.

Catholics can support the civil marriage of same sex couples because those marriages are not for anyone sacramental, including heterosexual couples and so, the definitions of sacramental marriage are irrelevant to the issue. The Church does not demand Catholics impose the Church’s teachings on the rest of the world.
In terms of moral theology, it is easily argued that justice and charity compel Christians to support same sex civil unions.

 

[Allegra]

Catholics can support the civil marriage of same sex couples because those marriages are not for anyone sacramental, including heterosexual couples and so, the definitions of sacramental marriage are irrelevant to the issue. The Church does not demand Catholics impose the Church’s teachings on the rest of the world.
In terms of moral theology, it is easily argued that justice and charity compel Christians to support same sex civil unions.

It might be argued that Christians would be compelled to support the rights of homosexuals to set up whatever sort of household they want. Individuals being forced to treat such unions as the same as marriage in a respects is not in the interest in charity or justice.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Individuals being forced to **treat such unions as the same as **marriage in a respects is not in the interest in charity or justice.

I don’t know how an individual can be forced to treat gay couples in any certain way. However, how would you, as an individual, treat a gay married couple differently than a heterosexual married couple?

(Note: I think since same gender couples are being married in several states and the District of Columbia, refusing to call them marriages is kind of foolish. We are speaking of a civil legal definition, not a Church definition. They are legally wed whether we like it or not.)

 

[edwest2]

(If you are not Catholic, sorry, but this thread doesn’t concern you)

I know there are a couple of threads on this subject currently running but they have a secular perspective and I want to know how Catholics can support gay “marriage,” given that marriage between a man and a woman is one of the seven Holy Sacraments and it seems that as Catholics we are required to uphold the seven Holy Sacraments. How can we even support gay “marriage” conducted in civil ceremonies or in other churches, if marriage is only sacramental when it is between a man and a woman?

I was talking with a moral theologian last night (starting his post-doc work), and he put it this way- from a Catholic doctrinal perspective, marriage must be:

1. uniting
2. complementary
3. procreative (i.e. physically procreative) or at least allowing of such (infertility happens)

He said that an argument may be advanced for gay “marriage” fulfilling requirement #1, but it is impossible to fulfill requirements 2 and 3, and all three must be fulfilled for the marriage to be sacramental.

We can’t. It’s all explained clearly here:

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

The thing to keep in mind is no one needs anybody’s permission to live how they want. Who’s stopping them? There was a commercial that aired briefly that show some men seated outside a Church who were not allowed entry. They were gay. Last I checked, there is never anyone at the front door who asked certain questions regarding my sexual orientation.

Second - Why was this issue on the ballot in so many states? Ask yourself. Why do they need my permission or anybody’s permission to do what they want?

With all due respect to our gay brothers and sisters, there are already “commitment ceremonies” occurring. ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_nkw=GAY+MARRIAGE+LIFE+PARTNER+WEDDING+CAKE+TOP+TOPPER

Right now, around the world, people are doing and living however they want.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I think there should be no marriage laws, personally, but that won’t work yet so for now I oppose gay marriage.

Ideally, I feel the government should get out of marriage (and everything else). I don’t think a faithful Catholic can say “The government should recognize gay marriage”.

Then why are gay people petitioning the government for help to legalize “gay marriage” in the first place? You can’t have it both ways.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I believe the government should not exist.

Therefore, my ideal government would not regulate anything. I’m an anarchist.

Good to know for future reference. How does anarchy serve the common good of anyone?

Peace,
Ed

 

[KCT]

I don’t know how an individual can be forced to treat gay couples in any certain way. However, how would you, as an individual, treat a gay married couple differently than a heterosexual married couple?

By ‘treating’, sometimes people mean for example, a photographer choosing not to photograph a gay union ceremony, or a B&B not offering a room to a gay couple etc.

Perhaps ‘offering the same services’ would be a better phrase (if that’s what the poster meant…).

 

[edwest2]

What’s wrong with anarchist catholicism anyway?

The anarchist part.



Ed

 

[edwest2]

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…

Has anyone here actually contacted their respective governments and voiced this idea? Internet forums are not the proper place to moan if action is not taken.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Allegra]

I don’t know how an individual can be forced to treat gay couples in any certain way. However, how would you, as an individual, treat a gay married couple differently than a heterosexual married couple?

(Note: I think since same gender couples are being married in several states and the District of Columbia, refusing to call them marriages is kind of foolish. We are speaking of a civil legal definition, not a Church definition. They are legally wed whether we like it or not.)

They can be compelled to do so by the passing of unjust laws that punish those who do not honor a homosexual union in the same way as a marriage. A musician should not have to face a fine because they refuse to perform at a “gay marriage” ceremony. A private company should not fear being put out of business because they won’t offer benefits packages to individuals who are playing at being married. In general, the American people (who have always voted down “gay marriage” laws when given a chance) should not be forced to conform to the irrational whims of individuals with disordered sexual appitites. Note: Couples who have been declared legally wed in states that have gone over the heads of the people they are supposed to represent are living a falsehood. They are not truely wed by the definition of marriage that has always been, whether the politicians like it or not. The law, in those states, is wrong. “Gay marriage” is a legalized lie.

 

[edwest2]

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

I worked in a major hospital for nearly 10 years. Sexual orientation and visitation were never an issue. Some examples would be helpful here. I was in an emergency room last year and my straight male friend spent some hours with me. No one asked about our relationship (friend?, brother?) much less sexual orientation.

Health insurance? Call a lawyer.

Hey, if I’m living with my sister and we file taxes separately, how is it any different for homosexuals?

Gay marriage is being presented as a committed, loving relationship on a one to one basis with straight marriage. There is evidence that this is not the case in many ‘marriages.’

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

So what’s the deal? Two gay guys live together, get a government subsidy package and can have relations with other guys at the same time? I hear about “rights and responsibilities,” but there appear to no responsibilities at all. It’s like having a roommate. That’s it.

And yes, I have heard from a few gay people that they do want a lifelong partner.

And what about those gay people who don’t believe in the institution of marriage?

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

I find it hard to believe after reading that last article that no writer or publication aimed at the gay community got the word out or that the gay (LGBT) community had any plans.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

The Church is certainly not taking that position and neither should the public at large.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Catholics can support the civil marriage of same sex couples because those marriages are not for anyone sacramental, including heterosexual couples and so, the definitions of sacramental marriage are irrelevant to the issue. The Church does not demand Catholics impose the Church’s teachings on the rest of the world.
In terms of moral theology, it is easily argued that justice and charity compel Christians to support same sex civil unions.

That is incorrect. Please read the following:

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

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I don’t know how an individual can be forced to treat gay couples in any certain way. However, how would you, as an individual, treat a gay married couple differently than a heterosexual married couple?

(Note: I think since same gender couples are being married in several states and the District of Columbia, refusing to call them marriages is kind of foolish. We are speaking of a civil legal definition, not a Church definition. They are legally wed whether we like it or not.)

The Church has a better definition. Two members of the same sex cannot be wed. And I’ve worked with gay people with no problems. As far as different treatment, I think we would not have certain things in common. I would decline an invitation to go to a gay bar.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Allegra]

We can’t. It’s all explained clearly here:

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

The thing to keep in mind is no one needs anybody’s permission to live how they want. Who’s stopping them? There was a commercial that aired briefly that show some men seated outside a Church who were not allowed entry. They were gay. Last I checked, there is never anyone at the front door who asked certain questions regarding my sexual orientation.

Second - Why was this issue on the ballot in so many states? Ask yourself. Why do they need my permission or anybody’s permission to do what they want?

With all due respect to our gay brothers and sisters, there are already “commitment ceremonies” occurring. ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_nkw=GAY+MARRIAGE+LIFE+PARTNER+WEDDING+CAKE+TOP+TOPPER

Right now, around the world, people are doing and living however they want.

Peace,
Ed

What bothers the pro-gay movement isn’t an actual breach of rights. They know that they can do whatever they want. The thing that gets their goats is that other people are allowed think that what they are doing is sinful and harmful to society. Perhaps they think that if only they can get the approval of the entire human race, then maybe God will see how they’re really not doing anything wrong. At any rate, if they can’t figure out a way to punish anyone that dares to think that homosexual acts are wrong, they can sure do whatever they can to punish anyone that dares to ACT as though homosexual acts are wrong. If they can get that through, the next step will be punishing those are willing to SAY that homosexual acts are wrong.

 

[Allegra]

The Church is certainly not taking that position and neither should the public at large.

Peace,
Ed

I’m not aware that the Church has expressed an opinion on solving the issue by the government dropping the issue of marriage altogether. Say there was a constitutional amendment or court ruling that stated that no government entity should designate benefits or privileges to any person on the basis of being married. The problem would be solved. Anyone who wanted to could call themselves “married” and anyone who wanted to could disagree. Churchs could marry who they like. All the people who live together who are not married could be content that no one is getting a dime more than they are. Lesbians and gay couples could have a big wedding party. Wedding photographers could carry on their business unharrassed. Chick-fil-a could open in Chicago. And everyone is happy. (Except the county clerks office, who’ve been deprived of their $50 licensing fee.)