Gay Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter TF2Medic93
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TF2Medic93

Guest
Good evening all?

I guess I’ll just cut to the chase instead of babbling on :D. But I had been wondering about if my belief of gay marriage is against church teaching or not? My belief is that I am against gay marriage but why should it remain illeagle, if an adult couple pleases to get married why should the state get in the way and say no. So I guess what I am saying is that I am personally against gay marriage, but as a liberty I believe people should make their own choices, since it’s between them and god. So is my belief out side of church teaching?

p.s. I don’t mean to make this a political or a theological debate, if I happen to stir things up I appologise.
 
But the fact remains that the Church has a very clear teaching on marriage as one of the seven sacraments, its ends, and its role in the order of human society.

The state can legalize whatever type of cohabitory union it wants to, but the fact is that it’s no more a marriage than the immersing of a cat in a basin of water (something against which there are no legal prohibitions, mind you) is a baptism. One who did so would be roundly accused of mockery of the Church’s sacraments, and people would see it as absurd. Such as the case with a so-called gay marriage.
 
The question is not merely the legality of the thing itself but rather the redefinition of one thing (marriage) to include completely impossible and illogical situations that are not marriage.

I don’t support square circles, but it is simply impossible to legalize them because they are a logical impossibility. And yet some people would completely support square circles just because some people say they cannot be had. Then they would demand that we tolerate square circles or we are bigots. Then they would insist that we accept and integrate square circles into our lives or we are hateful and closed-minded.

And the cycle goes on until circularity itself is destroyed and irrelevant in our culture. That’s the problem is that people hate circularity in itself and wish to abolish it. Square circles are simply the current wedge issue, a means to an end. Very few people care about square circles in and of themselves.
 
bardegaulois said:
But the fact remains that the Church has a very clear teaching on marriage as one of the seven sacraments, its ends, and its role in the order of human society.

The state can legalize whatever type of cohabitory union it wants to, but the fact is that it’s no more a marriage than the immersing of a cat in a basin of water (something against which there are no legal prohibitions, mind you) is a baptism. One who did so would be roundly accused of mockery of the Church’s sacraments, and people would see it as absurd. Such as the case with a so-called gay marriage.
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

A wonderful image, sir. Bravo. 😃
 
Yep, you can’t baptize a cat, you can’t ordain a woman, and you can’t marry a man to a man. It’s fairly simple and obvious.

It is clear by looking at the biological facts that God intended one man and one woman to cooperate to make babies. It is only logical that He planned for that same man and woman to continue to raise that child and nurture it to ensure the propogation of their own DNA. Even Darwin could admit this. The science is crystal clear. Liberals and secularists say that Christians don’t believe in science, now who is denying the facts?

Anyone who says that homosexual “marriage” is a private affair and hurts nobody is forgetting about children. There are children who will be adopted, surrogate-born, and test-tube grown for homosexual “couples” who will be hurt by this. I have shown how the science tells us about God’s plan. Why do people think it is alright to pervert that plan and ruin the lives of innocent children by raising them in a fundamentally dysfunctional household?
 
TF2Medic93 said:
Good evening all?

I guess I’ll just cut to the chase instead of babbling on :D. But I had been wondering about if my belief of gay marriage is against church teaching or not? My belief is that I am against gay marriage but why should it remain illeagle, if an adult couple pleases to get married why should the state get in the way and say no. So I guess what I am saying is that I am personally against gay marriage, but as a liberty I believe people should make their own choices, since it’s between them and god. So is my belief out side of church teaching?

p.s. I don’t mean to make this a political or a theological debate, if I happen to stir things up I appologise.
Click to expand...
Given the plethora of bishops and the like who have opposed gay marriage categorically, and also given the way it has been used as a bludgeon against those who object to it on moral grounds where it has been legalized, I would say you are at best on very shaky ground.

It may help to point out that this is not merely a case of refraining from criminalizing immoral behavior. It is true that some immoral behavior ought not be criminalized. But this is a case of creating a legal structure whose sole purpose is to protect and promote immoral behavior, which is used to to try to force people who recognize this behavior as immoral to cooperate with it anyway, and pretends with the force of law to that this immoral behavior is the same as marriage and so will not only persecute those who know the truth, but confuse those who grow up with the law being normal about what exactly marriage is.

Starting with the fact that a law creating gay “marriage” promotes evil explicitly, and continuing on to show that pretty much every immediate effect of such a law is also evil, I do not think there is any way to call such a law good or even acceptable. I do not think creating such a support structure for sin with so many evil effects could be excused by calling “liberty”. Again, in some cases such a call may prevent the criminalizing of immoral actions, but not the support of them.
 
People do have the free will to sin or not. That does not mean that society should normalize evil. Society should not recognize homosexual “marriage” as it is against natural law as well as God’s law.

Don’t accept the lie that evil is natural, normal, fun, healthy, good. It is not.
 
Instead of marriage, just call it a civil union, and then no one will be offended,.
 
Why are you “against gay marriage”? The Church is against legalizing same-sex marriage because homosexual behavior is always immoral. Immoral behavior hurts the person doing it, if not in this world then in the next, and is the sort of thing that should be discouraged not encouraged. Legalizing same-sex marriage would tend to encourage rather than discourage the immoral behavior that is homosexual behavior because legally married couples enjoy certain legal and economic privileges and benefits and legalizing same-sex marriage would extend those privileges and benefits to same-sex couples.
 
JamesTheJust said:
The CDF has ruled against this option as well.
Click to expand...
And it’s also unacceptable to the “other side.” So no option at all.

These folks need prayers and penance, not legal compromise. There’s none to be had.

ICXC NIKA
 
Even if you were to legalize same sex unions, strictly as a secular, contractual agreement between two people for the purposes of sharing health benefits, survivor benefits, etc…I still have deep reservations about how Catholic/conservative Christian businesses/clubs/organizations would be coerced to accept it.
 
JamesTheJust said:
The CDF has ruled against this option as well.
Click to expand...
Here is the document: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Summary: The State has both an interest and a duty to uphold and protect traditional marriage and has no authority to recognize other arrangements; and where states have sanctioned same-sex whatchamacallits, the Church instructs the faithful with the same instruction for those in states that legalize abortion: the faithful must avoid any and all formal cooperation with such laws and avoid material cooperation as much as is reasonably possible.

We need to internalize this because lately, many otherwise sensible people are suffering a kind of Stockholm Syndrome as the New Homophilia sweeps across nations like a plague, so they reach for a libertarian punt of “getting the government out of the marriage business”. I can sympathize with the impulse because it seems to allow us to carve out a kind of ghetto for ourselves where supposedly we can hold to traditional marriage unmolested, but evil won’t accept that arrangement for long.
 
on_the_hill said:
Even if you were to legalize same sex unions, strictly as a secular, contractual agreement between two people for the purposes of sharing health benefits, survivor benefits, etc…I still have deep reservations about how Catholic/conservative Christian businesses/clubs/organizations would be coerced to accept it.
Click to expand...
And this is the main arguement against it, in my opinion. After all, gay people have been free to call themselves “married” for quite some time. They can have a “wedding” ceremony. They can live together. They can do whatever they want, except force other people to accept their false marriage as reality. That’s what legalized “gay marriage” is actually about, making it illegal for people to not acknowledge it.
 
Allegra said:
. That’s what legalized “gay marriage” is actually about, making it illegal for people to not acknowledge it.
Click to expand...
Exactly. They great lie about liberalism is that it is just a live-and-let-live worldview. It isn’t. A friend of mine referred to this as a Tyranny of Contract:

–This willful blindness manifests itself in the language used under libertarian auspices. How often do we hear the issue of enforcing contracts between sodomites-qua-sodomites phrased as “allowing gays to marry?” The passive libertarian language of “allowing” deliberately conceals the reality; for what is advocated is not mere passivity. What is advocated at the most basic level is for society to enforce certain kinds of legal contracts, even though those legal contracts are grossly immoral. The passive language “allow gays to marry” is a lie. Enforcing contracts is an activity of government (not a passivity), and it is impossible to decide what to actively enforce and what not to actively enforce without making substantive judgements about the good. Substantive judgements about the good will necessarily discriminate: every function of governance, including contract enforcement, is an authoritative discrimination of some kind resting on some substantive concept of the good. What makes liberalism (including libertarianism) different from other political views is that liberalism has to make authoritative discriminations resting in a substantive conception of the good while at the same time denying that it is doing so. What makes liberalism different is that it has to lie about itself in order to invoke its own justifying principles, that is, nondiscrimination (equality of rights) and freedom from substantive discriminating authority.–

Source
 
Scott_Waddell said:
Exactly. They great lie about liberalism is that it is just a live-and-let-live worldview. It isn’t. A friend of mine referred to this as a Tyranny of Contract:

–This willful blindness manifests itself in the language used under libertarian auspices. How often do we hear the issue of enforcing contracts between sodomites-qua-sodomites phrased as “allowing gays to marry?” The passive libertarian language of “allowing” deliberately conceals the reality; for what is advocated is not mere passivity. What is advocated at the most basic level is for society to enforce certain kinds of legal contracts, even though those legal contracts are grossly immoral. The passive language “allow gays to marry” is a lie. Enforcing contracts is an activity of government (not a passivity), and it is impossible to decide what to actively enforce and what not to actively enforce without making substantive judgements about the good. Substantive judgements about the good will necessarily discriminate: every function of governance, including contract enforcement, is an authoritative discrimination of some kind resting on some substantive concept of the good. What makes liberalism (including libertarianism) different from other political views is that liberalism has to make authoritative discriminations resting in a substantive conception of the good while at the same time denying that it is doing so. What makes liberalism different is that it has to lie about itself in order to invoke its own justifying principles, that is, nondiscrimination (equality of rights) and freedom from substantive discriminating authority.–

Source
Click to expand...
👍

Very well said.

What goes by the name of liberalism these days is libertinism.

What really angers me about modern “liberalism” is that the good meanings of that word - generosity, openness, concern, self-giving - have all been lost and the term has been associated with exactly the opposite: self-centredeness, self-absorption, and a lack of concern for what God (or our neighbours) may think.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top