I realize this post was a while ago now, but it seems to still be relevant:
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:
- The act is sinful
- The Sacrament of Marriage must between a man and a women (fitting the 3-part definition you have been discussing)
And natural marriage as well, but more or less.
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 they were sexually attracted to each other, this would be at least near occasion to sin, which is only permitted with sufficient justification. So this may still be immoral.
However, even if they simply love each other like siblings or good friends, or if there is sufficient justification for them to live together despite the near occasion to sin (I have a hard time imagining what that would be, but lets assume that such justification is possible and exists), then what they are doing is still not marriage and has no need of being treated as one by anybody, any more than college roommates should be considered married.
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.
While we are told not to judge, we are not told to be stupid. You are confusing recognizing from clearly available evidence the fact that a person is sinning, probably sinning, or probably will continue to sin, with judging the state of a person’s soul.
The first needs to be done on a regular basis - did this person who looks a lot like the person caught on your security cameras break into your house? Is this person with a record of repeated embezzlement trustworthy enough to employ in my financial department? Is that guy wearing a ski-mask running down the road carrying a purse with a screaming lady chasing him a thief who needs to be stopped? Are those two guys who hold hands and call each other honey etc involved in an inappropriate relationship with each other?
Regarding marriage. Any officiant has the right to marry or not marry a couple for any reason.
Why, and what do you mean by “marry”? Just tell them that they’re married and listen while they make promises at each other? Because we’re not trying to outlaw that.
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”.
That’s not enough. We must also be able to say “your ‘marriage’ is not a marriage whatever you think, and we won’t give you the types of benefits we give to married couples or otherwise treat you as though you were married because you’re not married.”
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. … 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.
This amounts to saying that people are wrong and we must pretend that they’re right. Our definition does apply, some people just don’t know this. (And while these people are confused about what marriage is, on some level at least they do not think that it is merely a legal contract, or we wouldn’t get all these warm and fuzzy “but they love each other so SO much” arguments, as legal contracts have nothing whatsoever to do with love.)
These confused people are wrong. Their wrongness should not be enshrined in law so that the law says that what is wrong is right.
The fact that some people are confused about what marriage is might shed some light on why those people support legal gay marriage - but it does not show why you, as a Catholic who knows what marriage is, support legal gay marriage.
====== Addressing your last comments: =======
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.
- As a Catholic who knows that the act between gay people is wrong, and understanding that a gay couple who engages in this act is likely to teach any children they raise that it is right, you must admit that there is harm being done, whether it is deeply ingrained psychological harm or not.
- No one blames gays for the initial weakening of marriage, we simply say that this mess is weakening it even more.
And both these issues are side issues for Catholics. Gay “marriage” fails long before we get this far - these are “look, there’s harmful effects” arguments. Those arguments are only brought up to convince people who don’t see problem with the acts that gay “marriage” celebrates to start with.
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.
Doesn’t matter. Or rather, it does matter, but it says nothing whatsoever about gay “marriage.”
