Gay Marriage - What's the big deal?

[brianwalden]

I assure you, Mirdath know the Catholic sentiments about sex and sexuality very well. But not everyone in the US is Catholic, not even close. And perhaps you were being unclear. Just what is your objection again?

Perhaps I was being unclear - I was on a bit of a tangent. I was trying to respond to statements that seemed to imply that Christians have it in for homosexuals and use their God and their Scripture to justify this discrimination. I was just trying to point out that that’s not the case, at least for orthodox Catholics.

My objection is to the insulting way you dismiss my beliefs. I haven’t treated you in this way. If you know the Catholic position on sexuality so well why do you and Mirdath keep saying things like the Catholic position is built solely on God dictating that certain things are wrong. It’s the same thing as saying our right to life is based on God saying murder is wrong. Our right to life is based on the concept of human dignity; murder compromises that dignity and that’s why call it sinful. For Catholics, sexuality works the same way. It’s based on our human dignity; because of it certain sexual acts which violate that dignity are deemed sinful. You can disagree with the Catholic position all you want, but don’t insult Catholics with statements that our whole belief system is based on ‘God says X is wrong,’ especially when you claim to know better. Same thing with throwing out the infertility red herring.

I assure you I know that Catholics, especially those who agree with Catholic teachings, are a minority in the U.S. What’s that got to do with anything?

 

[Mirdath]

If you know the Catholic position on sexuality so well why do you and Mirdath keep saying things like the Catholic position is built solely on God dictating that certain things are wrong.

Then why don’t you explain how it is not built essentially on, around, and backwards into that?

It’s the same thing as saying our right to life is based on God saying murder is wrong. Our right to life is based on the concept of human dignity; murder compromises that dignity and that’s why call it sinful.

And the source of that human dignity is, according to Catholics, God’s breathing a soul into Adam, is it not?

 

[Sure]

And the source of that human dignity is, according to Catholics, God’s breathing a soul into Adam, is it not?

Any ethical system requires a concept of human value whether that value is derived from being created in the image and likeness of God or for some other “reason”.

 

[Nepenthe]

If my tone was rancorous, I sincerely regret it, and apologize, brianwalden. You have been remarkably honest, inquisitive, and genuinely fun to discuss with throughout the thread.

I do not dismiss your beliefs! I respect them, even though from my point of view re law they are ‘attitudes’ on this subject. The Catholic viewpoint may be built upon whatever (and really, isn’t it all about what the God of Abraham and the Church apparently prescribe? Last I checked, Jesus didn’t care one tittle about who ‘marries’ or is considered family-by-union with whom).

Thing is though, several posters nailed it – you are completely free to practice your religion, vis a vis marriage, sex, snake-handling, whatever floats your boat! And I really do know the Catholic justification of their stance on sexuality – and I think it is incorrect. But even that is of limited import in this thread, really.

Aside: Also – uh, sex and human dignity? Sometimes I wonder about that…most people are not exactly dignified in any sense about it. That whole idea always makes me picture making love to the Battle Hymn of the Republic or the 1812 Overture, and then I just crack up entirely.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Gay marriage is wrong.

I do not support it and never will. Marriage always was, and always should be between a man and a woman.

I think the very idea of “Gay Marriage” is ridiculous. Homosexuality is a sin and always will be.

I don’t hate gay people but I do believe that they should live celibate lives. I fully support Church teaching on this matter and believe that it is absolutely right.

NPS:

Understand that when homosexual “marriage” is legalized it will be legally mandatory to add homosexual sexual teaching into the existing sexual teaching so as not to “discriminate”. That means whatever grade human sexuality is taught, that age of child will be indoctrinated into that teaching.

Make no mistake—IT WILL BE ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO NOT TEACH YOUR KINDERGARTENER ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SEX.

Think for a moment about the far-reaching consequences of this nation’s five-year-olds learning homosexual sex.

It will be terrible if this ever happens. I think that children should be taught only about heterosexuality.

 

[Polaris]

Gay marriage is wrong.

I do not support it and never will. Marriage always was, and always should be between a man and a woman.

I think the very idea of “Gay Marriage” is ridiculous. Homosexuality is a sin and always will be.

I don’t hate gay people but I do believe that they should live celibate lives. I fully support Church teaching on this matter and believe that it is absolutely right.

It will be terrible if this ever happens. I think that children should be taught only about heterosexuality.

I disagree completely about teaching about sex in Kindergarden, but I do believe they should teach about homosexuality later in education. There are going to be children in this world through no fault of there own that are homosexual. What about them? Are you going to abandon them? Or go with the majority of Christians in Amreica that teach that they themselves are evil, and only if they stop feeling this way are they possible of good

 

[Vanny]

I haven’t had time to read through all the thread- but here are my thoughts:

Judeo-Christian teaching- especially Catholicism- teaches that marriage is about preocreation- bearing and raising and educating children- AND about companionship(Unitive and procreative.) In the 20th century- we’ve gotten away from that type of thinking and have been looking at marriage more from the love and companionship aspect, or fulfilling MY needs, with the advent of Birth Control, ect. But marriage has been traditionally understood to be about the next generation as well as the love between 2 peoples. Now having said that- marriage between people who cannot produce a child(i.e. hysterectomy and the elderly) are practiced as there is also a complementariness between male and female and marriage is about the unitive, as well. However MOST marriages when the people are of child-bearing age produce children.
If we allow marriages beyond this one-woman/one man/ unitive procreative- then we cannot morrally deny marriages to:
One man/several women
One woman/several men
group marriage(polyamory)
Uncle and Neice, Father and daughter, you name it.
If all it takes is “love” and the desire to be together, than how could we deny ANYONE combination of people the right to marry, right? Think about that a bit.
I mean. would you say, OK any two people who are not related?
You know how long that would last the polyamory rights group would be demanding their “right” to marry, after all they have rights and love each other too, and how does it affect YOUR relationship.
Of course the children in these unions would suffer terribly as we’ve ALREADY seen with easy divorce/remarriage.
Think about it.

 

[He_Man]

If my original premise was flawed, I confess my ignorance. I didn’t realize that the Church recognizes marriages outside of itself.

And I do realize that the institution of marriage is older than old and not something simply “conjured up” by the state…I just personally don’t see the harm as long as they’re not being married by a priest in a church.

Opposition to homosexual marriage is one of the byproducts of the opposition to homosexual lifetsyles.

If we begin fronm ther premise that homosexuality is disordered and sinful, then how can any act that occurs between the two logically NOT be the same? A gay pride parade fits the same bill. An all gay softball team, same deal.

How can you in one breath condemn a lifestyle, and in the next support establishments or organization that support said lifestyle? It makes no sense.

 

[Polaris]

I haven’t had time to read through all the thread- but here are my thoughts:

Judeo-Christian teaching- especially Catholicism- teaches that marriage is about preocreation- bearing and raising and educating children- AND about companionship(Unitive and procreative.) In the 20th century- we’ve gotten away from that type of thinking and have been looking at marriage more from the love and companionship aspect, or fulfilling MY needs, with the advent of Birth Control, ect. But marriage has been traditionally understood to be about the next generation as well as the love between 2 peoples. Now having said that- marriage between people who cannot produce a child(i.e. hysterectomy and the elderly) are practiced as there is also a complementariness between male and female and marriage is about the unitive, as well. However MOST marriages when the people are of child-bearing age produce children.
If we allow marriages beyond this one-woman/one man/ unitive procreative- then we cannot morrally deny marriages to:
One man/several women
One woman/several men
group marriage(polyamory)
Uncle and Neice, Father and daughter, you name it.
If all it takes is “love” and the desire to be together, than how could we deny ANYONE combination of people the right to marry, right? Think about that a bit.
I mean. would you say, OK any two people who are not related?
You know how long that would last the polyamory rights group would be demanding their “right” to marry, after all they have rights and love each other too, and how does it affect YOUR relationship.
Of course the children in these unions would suffer terribly as we’ve ALREADY seen with easy divorce/remarriage.
Think about it.

Well according to natural law Polygamous marriages are ok and they are still practiced today by the fastest growing religion. So why are you against them? Why if even your own belief system which at one time recognized multiple wives, supported them They also make all you standards. Unitive, Procreation and the upbrining of children.

 

[Exalt]

The way I see it, it’s pretty simple. Most companies that provide benefits give their employees coverage for their whole families… Will my family (my partner and children) be covered? Will institutions and businesses give my family the same benefits as a heterosexual family? (i.e., at my university, the immediate family of a full-time employee gets free tuition… would that apply to my own family?) Will the government respect joint property rights, next-of-kin status and shared parenting responsibilities? You know, it’s funny… the conservatives call their efforts to ban civil unions “protecting” the family and “defending” marriage. But the way I see it, the religious folk are the ones trying to undermine and separate *my *family. And why? Because God, the Bible, or (in your case) the Church told them to. Well, I don’t know about you guys, but I remember hearing a whole lot about the Golden Rule in Sunday school growing up. It might be about time to try it out on this issue.

 

[brianwalden]

Oh, I am. There are plenty of things about it that just don’t make a lot of sense. For instance, the idea that a couple is still ‘open to life’ after a hysterectomy is utterly laughable. Remember, I’m approaching Catholic thought from an outsider’s perspective: I don’t believe in miracles. I don’t believe, in the words of Monty Python, that ‘every sperm is sacred’ or that onanism is an affront to life itself; men can and do just make more semen, and that’s not even going into the thirty-nine million, nine hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine lil’ buggers that just go to waste in there if one lucky spermatozoa makes it to an egg – and that’s on the low side!

That’s fine, I’m happy to listen to your objections on such issues. I just get upset when you caricaturize my beliefs.

How it works now is a corruption of its original intent: to allow free expression of religious and, by extension, moral beliefs so long as these do not impose upon the free expression of others. The way it is now is not how it should be, or how it was supposed to be. And the best way to achieve the original goal, in my opinion, is for the law to forbid only activities that are directly detrimental to society. Having everybody squabble over whose morals get to be legislated only makes the problem worse.

Emphasis mine. It’s your opinon. I have mine. Neither of us can prove ourselves right. That’s why we have to squabble over laws. It’s better than other alternatives.

How does the current law impose upon free expression of religious or moral beliefs? If anything, not allowing people use their beliefs in deciding laws - as you suggest we do - imposes on the free expression of those beliefs.

You yourself admit that same-sex marriage will probably eventually be legalized over your objections. If anything becomes law that you disagree with, do you just let that right or that privilege slip quietly into the night, content with your fate as an American whose rights and privileges are decided by the whim of the voting majority?

No I don’t let it slip. I keep doing the same thing I’m doing now. That’s also what I’ve been telling you to do. You’re the one who says certain people shouldn’t be advocating for their position. We always have the right to try to get the laws to reflect our beliefs.

Actually, that doesn’t come from moral relativism but from free expression. You guys can keep your sacramental marriage between one man and one woman; after all, it’s a religious definition and you have the freedom to practice your religion as you like. The rest of us are not required to subscribe to that religious definition.

We do keep our sacramental marriage to ourselves. We don’t try to impose sacramental marriage on anyone who isn’t Christian. We talked about this way at the very beginning of the thread.

Why is the definition of marriage as union between one man and one woman a religious definition? Why I am required to subscribe to your “secular” definition of marriage? Neither definition is religious or secular. We have different definitions of what marriage is and we both have the same right to influence the law to reflect our definition.

Where civil marriage is concerned, yes.

Where has the government declared this right for a person to marry any other person? If you’re saying it should be a human right for one person to marry any other person regardless of sex, go right ahead. But current marriage laws do not violate anyone’s declared rights.

Then let’s take away the benefits that come to heterosexual married couples! Equality under the law! I’d be content with that, but I see no reason to bring one group down when we can raise everyone else up.

That’s you’re opinion. Keep fighting for it. But don’t say I’m violating anyone’s rights when fighting for my position. I don’t mind disagreeing with you on the subject, I do mind being told I’m not allowed to disagree.

 

[brianwalden]

The government cannot give benefits to a Baptist marriage and not grant them to a Catholic marriage. It is not to discriminate, and since it is currently doing so, it is in the wrong.

There government doesn’t determine marriage benefits by one’s sexuality, just as it doesn’t determine them by one’s religious beliefs. The current elements necessary for a marriage are one consenting man and one consenting woman. If you have two men, or two women, or two women and one man, or any other combination you can think of you don’t have the proper elements for a marriage. This isn’t discriminatory, its the government’s definition of a marriage. A person can choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, or not, regardless of their race, creed, sexual orientation, or anything else. Couples aren’t asked their sexual orientation when they apply for a marriage license; they’re asked whether they meet the requirements of one consenting man and one consenting woman.

You seem to be implying that there’s a higher authority than the government which has defined that marriage is a relationship between any people regardless of gender. Is that what you’re getting at? If that were the case, the government would indeed be wrong by restricting marriage to something which it is not.

 

[brianwalden]

Well according to natural law Polygamous marriages are ok and they are still practiced today by the fastest growing religion. So why are you against them? Why if even your own belief system which at one time recognized multiple wives, supported them They also make all you standards. Unitive, Procreation and the upbrining of children.

According to who’s version of natural law? Do you really want to get into natural law?

Are we discussing who’s views are right? Or are we discussing whether Catholics are right or wrong to make such a big deal over marriage laws? I thought we were primarily doing the latter. If you want to get into who’s position is truly right, it might be an interesting discussion, but there’s no way to determine a winner here.

 

[Mirdath]

Emphasis mine. It’s your opinon. I have mine. Neither of us can prove ourselves right. That’s why we have to squabble over laws. It’s better than other alternatives.

But how is yours better? It means you and all of us have to keep fighting, instead of building on common ground. Why must we fight?

How does the current law impose upon free expression of religious or moral beliefs? If anything, not allowing people use their beliefs in deciding laws - as you suggest we do - imposes on the free expression of those beliefs.

Sure it does. Say a law gets pushed through that prohibits alcoholic beverages entirely, in keeping with Muslim beliefs. There goes your blood of Christ. Free exercise? Nope.

We do keep our sacramental marriage to ourselves. We don’t try to impose sacramental marriage on anyone who isn’t Christian. We talked about this way at the very beginning of the thread.

Then why, as I keep asking, do you keep trying to push your idea and your prerequisites for marriage as you see it on the rest of us?

Why is the definition of marriage as union between one man and one woman a religious definition? Why I am required to subscribe to your “secular” definition of marriage? Neither definition is religious or secular.

Yours is patently religious; mine is not, therefore secular – and being more open, allows for more freedom of action and interpretation by private bodies like the Church.

Where has the government declared this right for a person to marry any other person?

By not – until recently, in some states – banning it. Rights are permissive.

You seem to be implying that there’s a higher authority than the government which has defined that marriage is a relationship between any people regardless of gender. Is that what you’re getting at? If that were the case, the government would indeed be wrong by restricting marriage to something which it is not.

The government is the servant of society, not its master. Certain citizens wish to marry each other, causing no obvious harm to society, and if the government forbids them it is putting itself well above its proper position.

According to who’s version of natural law?

Yours! Polygyny is on record in the bible – look at the example of Jacob.

 

[DebCWil]

“Today, the various forms of the erosion of marriage, such as free unions and ‘trial marriage,’ and even pseudo-marriages between people of the same sex, are instead an expression of anarchic freedom that are wrongly made to pass as true human liberation. This pseudo-freedom is based on a trivialization of the body, which inevitably entails the trivialization of the person.”–Pope Benedict XVI [Rome 6/6/2005]

Marriage might be viewed merely as a means of procreation, a means of perserving the species. That however is a very limited view. The marriages of Abraham and Sarah, as well as Zechariah and Elizabeth were valid even in their infertility. If we hold this to be true than marriage must involve more than the conjugal act. “Some sense of the greatness of matrimonial union exists in all cultures”[CCC1603]
Man and woman were each made in the image and likeness of God. As mentioned in earlier posts, they complement each other. When marriage is defined as an exclusive relationship between one man and one woman, it reflects the dignity and equality of man and woman. Anything else falls short. Do we really want anything less than the best?
In Proverbs 31:19, the author writes of 4 wonderous things;
(1) the soaring flight of an eagle;(2) the mysterious moverment of a serpent on a rock;(3) a ship on the high sea; and (4) the way of a man with a woman.
Three things are pleasing to the Lord (Sirach 25)–(1) Harmony among brethern;(2) friendship among neighbors; (3) the mutual love of husband and wife.

 

[brianwalden]

And all of this is why I find conservative insistence on the defence of marriage (for instance), or the legislation of morality in general, to be absurdly hipocritical–if it is indeed true that the government is best that governs least, appealing to government power for the solution to moral problems is an untenable position.

Interesting thoughts! So, from your perspective, why is the government in the marriage business at all? Why should the government recognize any type of relationship as opposed to any other one? Why doesn’t it just sit back and let people do their own thing?

 

[Polaris]

According to who’s version of natural law? Do you really want to get into natural law?

Are we discussing who’s views are right? Or are we discussing whether Catholics are right or wrong to make such a big deal over marriage laws? I thought we were primarily doing the latter. If you want to get into who’s position is truly right, it might be an interesting discussion, but there’s no way to determine a winner here.

Well many are saying that Homosexual marriage is against natural law. So if we are going to use your natural law as our basis of law then lets use it. Actually its the churchs definition of natural law I am using. Polygamy is not against hte nature of marriage but it is not the ideal. ( Polyandry though was against the natural law but that had to do with not knowing who your father was. In this day an age that can be removed with a simple test)

 

[Publisher]

We heard the same old arguements when interracial marriages were being debated…exactly the same arguments.

 

[Vanny]

Well according to natural law Polygamous marriages are ok and they are still practiced today by the fastest growing religion. So why are you against them? Why if even your own belief system which at one time recognized multiple wives, supported them They also make all you standards. Unitive, Procreation and the upbrining of children.

Polaris, that’s a good question and one I’ve seen before-I’m not Catholic so I don’t know the Church’s aarguments against it per se(would have to look it up) I know that God seemed to “overlook” or tolerate such unions in the past(David and Solomon) come to mind. I was always taught that Christ re-established marriage as a sacrement between one man and one woman-as in the beginning (Adam and Eve) when He came.
OK here it is in part CCC 2387:
“Conjugal communion is radically contradicted by polygamy, this in fact directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive”

It would be much harder for one man to give himself as a husband and father to many wives and (perhaps) numerous different children than one wife- which I believe was intended from the beginning.

This is my understanding, anyway.

 

[nilofc]

One question… have you seen a gay dog?

If not, I know why… it’s not natural.