Gay "marriage" question for CATHOLICS

[Julia_Mae]

T

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

You said this:

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.

This is exactly the way the government, after the Supreme Court ruled it illegal to discriminate, forces us to treat black folks. I never said word one about you at all. I responded to you saying the government was forcing you to do something, you said it as if that were wrong. It isn’t wrong. It isn’t right. The government is not moral or immoral in this case, it is doing exactly what rule of law requires, as it did in the past in an almost exactly similar situation.

BTW, keep in mind that there were, and are, people on the side of black/white separation and discrimination who believe, sincerely, that God mandates this. They had endless Bible quotes to support their position: a matter of faith and morals.

The law disagreed. They too, claimed a government conspiracy against Christian values. And there are many today who hold this same view. It is in the interest of justice that we must vigorously separate Church and state.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The fabric of society depends on marriage being upheld as it really is…

There’s no evidence of this. All we’ve gotten from a subculture of persons denied the right to form the families that keep society stable is a lot of grief. AIDS alone should convince you of that. There is no reason to think that gay people marrying won’t increase the stability of society.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

This is exactly the way the government, after the Supreme Court ruled it illegal to discriminate, forces us to treat black folks. I never said word one about you at all. I responded to you saying the government was forcing you to do something, you said it as if that were wrong. It isn’t wrong. It isn’t right. The government is not moral or immoral in this case, it is doing exactly what rule of law requires, as it did in the past in an almost exactly similar situation.

If it is forcing us to do something we shouldn’t be forced to do, then it is wrong. The fact that the rule of law requires it is irrelevant. The law needs to be changed so that people are not forced to do things they shouldn’t be forced to do.

You cannot just pretend the moral issues magically disappear when it’s the government forcing people to do things.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Two people of the same-sex cannot MAKE a marriage, no matter what anyone anywhere calls it.

Which is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are not to be forced on society at large. That would be immoral.

 

[edwest2]

Well, if we discuss this we get into matters of law and the OP doesn’t want that. However, for the sake of accuracy I will point out yet again a that no one shut down an adoption agency for not placing children with gay couples. The government withdrew the grant money that Catholic Charities was using to fund most of their operation. Catholic Charities decided to shut down their adoption services. They can have adoption services, limited to Catholics, and not give children to gay people. They just can’t use government money to do so.

Now, what’s the moral imperative here? Any Diocese or Archdiocese in the country can operate adoption services. If we believe giving children to gay persons is such a grave matter (Although, I’m stumped as to where in Church teaching it says this.) then why don’t we do something about it instead of trying to get all the people who don’t believe as we do to act the way we want them to act?

I don’t think you understand what marriage is. The Catholic agencies were forced to close because they found themselves in the position of being required by law to add gay couples to their list of possible adoptive parents. Of course, the agencies filed a legal protest and failed. In the name of tolerance, Catholic views were not tolerated.

nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/for-bishops-a-battle-over-whose-rights-prevail.html?pagewanted=all

Marriage as it is should be defended by believers and non-believers for the common good of society.

Regarding giving children to gay persons, the Church tells us:

“As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Befink]

Everything that is truly God’s will stems from his love for us. The Church has very few instances in it’s history where it claims infallible dogmatic teaching and that’s pretty much summarized in the creed which we faithfully pray every Sunday. Short of that, the Church has done great work promoting moral values over the centuries but has not been perfect, nor does it claim to be. In retrospect, whenever the Church went wrong in either actions or teachings it was because they didn’t see the path of greater love and had to apologize, change a teaching, etc. Therefore, it’s always a fair question to seek the path of greater love when forming a conscience around the values She teaches.

It’s a mistake to assume natural law applies in the Catholic definition when it clearly does not or it wouldn’t be such a hot topic in society. It’s obviously not the same as murder, rape, theft, adultery, etc. where courts have no trouble seeing why those laws are necessary. Typically courts strike down anti-gay laws as discriminatory because secular evidence does not support that they are justified.

It’s also a mistake to assume the Church definition of marriage is what greater society is concerned about. Most gays don’t care if they can get married in a church, they want the same respect and legal rights that straight people have who love each other and want to make a lifetime legal and emotional commitment to each other.

On this issue, the Church only recently realized that SST is not typically a choice and further admits that the whole issue is not fully understood. Imagine that not long ago, if you asked your priest for advice over issues with SST, they would essentially tell you that you’re screwed up if you don’t chose to marry a woman and procreate with her.

My question back to opponents of gay marriage is why you feel that homosexual couples who typically practice their lifestyle privately and otherwise seek legal rights to each other, hurt you? What exactly are they doing that offends you and damages society? Is it just icky to you? Are you worried your sacramental marriage means less because of them? Do you feel your children will “catch it” (even though it’s not a choice)? Why do you personally feel the path of greater love is to deny them rights instead of letting them make their own private choices while you make yours?

 

[edwest2]

Probably the simplest way for me to explain it is this: imagine gay couples were called to follow every piece of our doctrine except specifically that homosexuality is a sin (and with it that sex must be procreative). Gay couples would then be expected to save themselves til marriage, stay in committed monogamous relationships, avoid impurity etc, just as we are.

Also like us, there are many gays violating these laws to their own detriment. If you add back the doctrine about homosexuality, all you’re forbidding is sex within marriage as everything else they would do was already considered a sin.

Jesus never mentions this issue, the only New Testament references to homosexuality come from Paul. In context, they referred to other sinful behavior of the time such as orgies, sex outside marriage, etc. Paul was the first of many Catholic writers to express concern over homosexuality because it was commonly sinful in many other ways. Nobody had the idea at the time that monogamous homosexual couples would emerge as society evolved over thousands of years, let alone deserve the same legal rights and recognition as straight married couples.

As I pray on these issues, it has not been revealed to me yet that the path of greater love is to deny these couples their legal rights. Instead I see us as going beyond our doctrine to impose our values on the rest of society, often using fear-based arguments instead of love-based ones. Might as well make laws that everyone needs to be baptized and take communion every week.

If we are truly to follow God’s will, we must do so out of love for Him by our own free will, not because laws were imposed upon us based on other people’s values.

Have you read what the Church teaches about marriage? It does not use any fear-based arguments.

Where do you think laws come from?

Gay marriage is a new phenomenon, starting only in 2001. Global society has generally not evolved. As evidence, look at most TV shows and movies. The message? You cannot control your sexual desires and you can do whatever you want sexually.

Have you missed the fact that gay “commitment ceremonies” are going on right now?

Every time a person votes, whoever he is, he is voting to impose whatever he believes on the rest of us. I hope you understand that. Looking at it as a one-way street is not helpful or realistic.

In the New Testament

1 Corinthians 6:9: “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor homosexuals nor sodomites … will inherit the kingdom of God.”

1 Timothy 1:10: “… law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly … the unchaste, practicing homosexuals, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching.”

Romans 1:26-27: “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”

I pray that God guides you on your journey.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Julia_Mae]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

Good thing I never said that, then. I said what is above: that the government is not trying to force beliefs on people, they are just enforcing the law. If you think the law is wrong, try to change it. If people agree, enough people, you will. If the Court upholds on challenge.

But if the government can’t handle it, then they should back out of the charity business and let people donate directly to the organizations they support.

“Let people?” No one is stopping you. This is my point. No one is stopping the Church, or you as a private Catholic citizen, from creating a Catholic Adoption service that doesn’t give children to gay people.

And if we think that will result in a catastrophic drop in charity (which it might) then we need to insure that the government gives out charity money based only on whether or not the charity is doing a good job, and does not discriminate based on that charity’s religious beliefs.

And “doing a good job” with Federal money requires complying with Federal regulations.

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 think spreading the Word and trying to convince people are fine things. I think trying to legally block people from accessing the same rights as others is both immoral and unAmerican.

As Catholics, we know that same sex marriage does not and can not exist. If the government makes it law then it will a) force us to treat it like it exists, b) help it to become to seem to many people as though it is a real thing and normal and good.

1. Marriage as defined by our faith requires two genders.
2. It does exist as a part of our culture, in some places, pretending it doesn’t makes no sense to me.
3. I think it would be a positive thing for society and charity, justice and morality of our Faith demands we support it. .

As a Catholic, we CANNOT support actions which are aimed at normalizing immorality.

As Catholic Christians, we MUST make the choices and take the actions that most reflect the love of our Savior, Jesus Christ, including integrating gay persons into our culture as accepted members with the same rights and privileges and responsibilities as others, which includes the right to form civil unions, often called marriage.

 

[edwest2]

No, I’m not. Catholics can support same sex civil marriage because civil union is not Sacramental marriage. That is a response to the op.

This isn’t true. Never will be. That is why the word CATHOLICS appears in the title of this thread. There is no “civil world” over here and a “catholic world” over there.

Anytime anyone votes for something, pagan or Christian, they are imposing what they believe on the rest of us. It is not a one-way street.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bill_Martin]

This isn’t true. Never will be. That is why the word CATHOLICS appears in the title of this thread. There is no “civil world” over here and a “catholic world” over there.

Anytime anyone votes for something, pagan or Christian, they are imposing what they believe on the rest of us. It is not a one-way street.

Peace,
Ed

And anytime we vote for imposing our belief on them through the force of law, it is just as wrong.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Originally Posted by Julia Mae

I see no difference in our positions. The Church is also resolutely clear on divorce and remarriage. Yet, no one thought they were morally obligated to refuse service to divorced and remarried couples or pass a law refusing the right to marry to divorced persons.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Supporting someone’s right to be wrong is not the same as believing that wrong is right.

I think this is an important point.

 

[edwest2]

Legislating morality is all nice and everything until the government’s idea of morality differs from ours. That is why we have a separation of church and state and why we should continue to support it. It is also why legislating morality is not a good idea. It would be better for the government to stop regulating and defining Sacraments. The precedent that it sets is unacceptable.

Hi Bill,

So what are you doing about the government? Every time someone votes, pagan or religious, they are imposing what they believe on the rest of us. Some people here don’t get that. It’s not a one-way street where the religious are trying to overturn society. The fact is, gay marriage is an attempt to overturn society.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Julia_Mae]

If it is forcing us to do something we shouldn’t be forced to do, then it is wrong. The fact that the rule of law requires it is irrelevant. The law needs to be changed so that people are not forced to do things they shouldn’t be forced to do.

You cannot just pretend the moral issues magically disappear when it’s the government forcing people to do things.

I don’t pretend that. I agree with them. I think the government in this case is behaving in a way demanded by law and, coincidentally, morally.

 

[edwest2]

Which was the same way it was put in.

Please provide a credible source for your statement.

amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0691028370

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

Great post.

Ed

 

[Julia_Mae]

“As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. …”

Did they place children with single persons? Do you think institutionalization os preferable for children over single parents? Do you advocate removing children from homes a where a parent has left or died? I’m not sure what this is supposed to prove. Children need n models of behavior from a variety of adults and situations. Biological parents are only one way they get that and not always the best way, depending on the people.

I know two gay men who adopted two children who taken away from drug-addicted parents. You want to send them back? One was born in prison. They don’t know any other parents. You want to take them from suburban/rural Connecticut and send them back to the slums? This seems the more moral choice to you?

 

[edwest2]

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.

That this error follows several others—the widespread use of contraception and abortion, most notably—doesn’t make it any less an error. (It’s easier to understand—many heterosexual couples who rely on contraception and abortion when needed have divorced sexuality from childbearing and taken to thinking about sex the way homosexuals presumably do: something with no connection to children.)

Exactly right. Orgasms are more important than having babies.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

If you want marriage upheld, as do I, then looking to government bureaucrats to do it is ill-advised.

Bill,

You’re only offering an opinion and not doing anything about it. The government has defined marriage. What we are discussing here is an attack against the institution of marriage which is the basic building block of any society.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Everything that is truly God’s will stems from his love for us.[true] The Church has very few instances in it’s history where it claims infallible dogmatic teaching and that’s pretty much summarized in the creed which we faithfully pray every Sunday.[trueish] Short of that, the Church has done great work promoting moral values over the centuries but has not been perfect, nor does it claim to be.[true as far as promoting goes] In retrospect, whenever the Church went wrong in either actions or teachings it was because they didn’t see the path of greater love and had to apologize, change a teaching [Alarm bells ringing], etc. Therefore, it’s always a fair question to seek the path of greater love when forming a conscience around the values She teaches.

This last part is where the error happens. The Church never has, never will and cannot change a teaching. The Church can and has made mistakes in how to promote truth, in how to teach it and in failing to apply it. The Church (distinct from it’s members) does not make mistakes in saying what this truth, as far as faith and morals go, actually is.

There is no way the Church could be wrong about the impossibility of gay “marriage,” and saying that it could be is not the path of greater love. It is encouraging people to keep the right hand that will send them to hell if not removed.

It’s a mistake to assume natural law applies in the Catholic definition when it clearly does not or it wouldn’t be such a hot topic in society. It’s obviously not the same as murder, rape, theft, adultery, etc. where courts have no trouble seeing why those laws are necessary. Typically courts strike down anti-gay laws as discriminatory because secular evidence does not support that they are justified.

God has not promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against the American court system or against “hot topics in society”. If they cannot see the problem, it is because they are blind not because there is no problem.

Likewise, natural law has next to nothing to do with what society thinks is obvious. Society is quiet capable of being completely stupid and has been on many, many occasions.

It’s also a mistake to assume the Church definition of marriage is what greater society is concerned about. Most gays don’t care if they can get married in a church, they want the same respect and legal rights that straight people have who love each other and want to make a lifetime legal and emotional commitment to each other.

They want to be lied to and to be treated as though they have something they do not have. The mere fact that they want this does not mean that we should lie to them and pretend that they have something they don’t have.

On this issue, the Church only recently realized that SST is not typically a choice and further admits that the whole issue is not fully understood. Imagine that not long ago, if you asked your priest for advice over issues with SST, they would essentially tell you that you’re screwed up if you don’t chose to marry a woman and procreate with her.

Whether or not it’s a choice is and has always been irrelevant. Whether or not some priests in the past may (and I say may because I’m not sure I beleive you) have given bad advice is irrelevant.

My question back to opponents of gay marriage is why you feel that homosexual couples who typically practice their lifestyle privately and otherwise seek legal rights to each other, hurt you? What exactly are they doing that offends you and damages society?

If they simply practiced their lifestyle privately, they wouldn’t be seeking public recognition of it. But even given that, we cannot recognize as good something that is bad merely because the bad thing is hidden from view.

They are doing something immoral. Immorality of any kind should offend anyone who knows that it is immoral.

They are spreading the idea that the immoral is moral. This is both offensive and damaging to society.

Is it just icky to you? Are you worried your sacramental marriage means less because of them? Do you feel your children will “catch it” (even though it’s not a choice)? Why do you personally feel the path of greater love is to deny them rights instead of letting them make their own private choices while you make yours?

Why is it that you think that the path of greater love is to cheer as people walk the path leading them further and further away from God and may very well lead to Hell?

Let’s be clear - homosexual activity is absolutely wrong. You cannot call it love to lie to people and tell them that it’s right. You cannot call it love to insist that society join in your lie. You cannot call it love to set up a legal structure whose sole goal is to normalize this lie, call it truth, and punish those who dare deny it.

The absence of such a twisted legal structure is not denying people rights. If gay people want to pretend that they’re married, and if others want to lie to them and tell them that they are, they have that ability already. What they don’t have is the government standing behind them with a big club forcing everyone else to accept this lie, and they have no right to that.