We would not, because none of those laws need to prohibit the behavior on the basis that it is immoral; they only prohibit the behavior because of how it deprives another of a fundamental right (life, liberty, etc).
No one said they were doing bad work. The Court made a decision, the organization was informed of the regulations, they refused to comply. It’s a not a conspiracy, it’s just the law. No one is forcing their ideas on us. We can have all the adoption agencies we want working the way we wish. We just can’t use everyone else’s money to do so.
He told us to spread the Gospel, make known His Word. He didn’t tell us to try and make people act in a certain way.
I just am not seeing a moral issue in giving legal civil status to same sex marriage. There are all kinds of marriages the Church doesn’t see as Sacramental, all kinds of people are divorced and remarried and we believe those are not marriages. Whenever did we rise up or were encouraged to, to pass laws to have those marriages invalidated? When did we refuse to allow such people to adopt children?
Which was the same way it was put in.
This is dirty pool. No one is denying that gay people are human beings. The question is about marriage, what marriage is, and whether a couple of the same-sex can make a marriage. The answer is no. This is not discrimination, it is biology. To suggest that because I oppose same-sex marriage, I must be some sort of bigot is an unwarranted insult.
And why is depriving a person of a “fundamental right” a bad thing?
There was actually:
The state doesn’t call it marriage, but extended all rights of marriage making them indistinguishable. The vote this November is an attempt to repeal a same-sex marriage law, which just combined the two previous identical but for the word “marriage” civil contracts.
I’m unclear as to whether they are trying to undo domestic partnerships as well, or just calling it marriage. I admit I conflated the two, as they are in fact identical except in name.
Never said it wasn’t, or that any of those things aren’t.
Exactly. Those things are legislated because of the impact they have on the entire community. That’s exactly why the government cannot simply “bow out” of addressing marriage. The fabric of society depends on marriage being upheld as it really is. If the government simply stepped back and did nothing, the results would be catastrophic.
Two people of the same-sex cannot MAKE a marriage, no matter what anyone anywhere calls it. The only way to pretend they can is to redefine marriage so that children are an incidental feature, like an inside pocket on a coat.Many people have adopted this error and many encourage others to do the same, and the idea is increasingly current but nonetheless wrong.
It was descriptive. This is what happens when you conflate religion and government, something we must avoid at all costs. (And note I never said anyone was that, I said we might as well start to call ourselves that if we are going to try and impose our religious beliefs on the population.)
Our religion defines beliefs and this is one of them. That you believe there is a universal definition of marriage which can never be ab anything else is a religious belief, a tenant of faith.
Of course it does. The Church teaches a lot of things, one of which is, we do not force our beliefs on others.
I’m not being silent about it. I am doing all in my power to follow Christ and defend the common good.
I’m sorry: “fact?” Please link me to the board and I will post a poll. P Otherwise, I think this is your subjective assessment of others mindset. BTW, do you want Catholics to keep speaking up for the civil right to marriage for same sex couples?
The fabric of society does not hinge upon the government’s definition of marriage. If they are going to be involved in marriage at all, they will have to define it. And when they do, they will have a chance to get it wrong.
This is not correct, IMO. Criminal law is about protecting the rights of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
“It’s just the law” is a terrible defense when we’re talking about what law should be. That law is wrong. That’s all there is to it. Telling me that the law is not wrong because it’s the law makes no sense.
Spreading the word and trying to convince (not force - I never said that no matter how often you say that I did) people to follow it are the same thing.
I agree. This is why the government should not be involved. If they have the power to define it, and they do, it is inevitable that they will misuse it.
The question is, how can one remain true to Catholic teaching- where is resolutely clear on the point that marriage is a Sacrament between a man and woman- and at the same time support civil or same sex “marriage?” If one merely acquiesces to the latter but considers it a fiction, a “marriage” in name only, is one then still true to the Sacrament?
Depends on what you mean by “support”. Supporting someone’s right to be wrong is not the same as believing that wrong is right.
They get the definition of “murder” wrong, too, by defining the murder of babies as “women’s reproductive health” and the murder of old people as “dying with dignity.” That doesn’t mean I want them to throw in the towel completely and not define anything as murder.
Gay marriage doesn’t lead to dead people, so it’s not an equal comparison.
