Gay Marriage

[Bookcat]

W

“If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties”

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons (3 June 2003), 8, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City 2003, p. 9.

Quoted in the Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church issued by St. Pope John Paul II

 

[Rau]

So there is no law or anything saying they can or cannot live together meaning it is probably fine to do.

It means it is not illegal. Do you think it is fine? Would you be ok with your son making a choice to have a sexual relationship with a man, or seeking to Marry a man? I assume you would not be ok with either of those.

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

It means it is not illegal. Do you think it is fine? Would you be ok with your son making a choice to have a sexual relationship with a man, or seeking to Marry a man? I assume you would not be ok with either of those.

No I would not I would try to persuade him to stop, but I would accept him either way.

 

[Thorolfr]

A question I have is when do we all get to vote on whether Catholics can get married? After all, us Protestants might decide that Catholics shouldn’t be allowed to marry

 

[Rau]

No I would not I would try to persuade him to stop, but I would accept him either way.

I am sure you would love him. I am surprised you would not seek to counsel your son to embrace God, rather than sin.

Would you attend the wedding?

 

[Rau]

A question I have is when do we all get to vote on whether Catholics can get married? After all, us Protestants might decide that Catholics shouldn’t be allowed to marry

Non sequitir.

Religious faith does not alter capacity to marry. Biological complementarity (lack of it) does.

 

[Thorolfr]

Non sequitir.

Religious faith does not alter capacity to marry. Biological complementarity (lack of it) does.

I’m not talking about biology but about how much the question of who should be allowed to marry should be left up to voters. Voters in the past decided that interracial couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry and biology had nothing to do with this. Maybe it’s good that the courts have stepped in.

 

[AngelusDomini]

Non sequitir.

Religious faith does not alter capacity to marry. Biological complementarity (lack of it) does.

It did in the UK until a few years ago - the monarch could not marry a Catholic.

 

[Rau]

There is widespread confusion these days between the intrinsic nature of marriage, and the societal framework that governments have attached to it.

Legislators and courts cannot opine to alter the intrinsic nature of marriage as between man and woman because the basis of that fact is outide their jurisdiction. It is from the nature of man.

If some have a difficulty with the “discrimination” inherent in the societal framework attached to marriage, then perhaps government’s ought to be told to:

• step back and offer no framework; or
• offer business-like frameworks to all-comers who have interests in sharing assets, inheritance arrangements and the like.

These things are within the jurisdiction of governments.

 

[Thorolfr]

Non sequitir.

Religious faith does not alter capacity to marry. Biological complementarity (lack of it) does.

In most of the Muslim world, Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men. It’s illegal

 

[Rau]

It did in the UK until a few years ago - the monarch could not marry a Catholic.

That (presumably) was a mere legal issue and thus has no bearing on my point.

 

[Rau]

In most of the Muslim world, Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men. It’s illegal

You fail to recognise and distinguish the intrinsic nature of marriage from the legal framework attached by society.

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

I am sure you would love him. I am surprised you would not seek to counsel your son to embrace God, rather than sin.

Would you attend the wedding?

I would try to ask him to embrace God but there is only so much I can do, yes I would attend the wedding out of respect for the love I have for my son.

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

Are we just going to argue all day, can we conclude this?

 

[Rau]

I’m not talking about biology but about how much the question of who should be allowed to marry should be left up to voters. Voters in the past decided that interracial couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry and biology had nothing to do with this. Maybe it’s good that the courts have stepped in.

Had people instead focussed on their real nature, the mistakes of disallowing interracial marriage, and of allowing same sex marriage, would not have been made.

 

[Thorolfr]

You fail to recognise and distinguish the intrinsic nature of marriage from the legal framework attached by society.

Catholic theologians have defined what they believe the “intrinsic nature” of marriage to be, but not everyone else agrees with that definition or finds the reasoning behind it convincing.

 

[AyJSimon]

You fail to recognise and distinguish the intrinsic nature of marriage from the legal framework attached by society.

Even if we managed to find such a distinction, what difference would it make? You can claim the Catholic definition of marriage is entirely consistent with the intrinsic nature of marriage. And the secular government would still be well within its rights to alter its definition to fit within a pre-existing legal framework. Doing so would not affect the Catholic definition of marriage in the slightest, or affect any Catholic’s right to determine for themselves what is a valid marriage and what is not.

 

[Rau]

I would try to ask him to embrace God but there is only so much I can do, yes I would attend the wedding out of respect for the love I have for my son.

To celebrate his actions, both current (wedding) and intended (sex with another man) would seem to be an odd way to show love. Would you invite your friends to the wedding to celebrate with you?

It is hard to believe that you really believe same sex acts are gravely wrong, and that same sex marriage is not true (both of which you’ve stated previously).

 

[AngelusDomini]

That (presumably) was a mere legal issue and thus has no bearing on my point.

There was nothing ‘mere’ about it.

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

To celebrate his actions, both current (wedding) and intended (sex with another man) would seem to be an odd way to show love. Would you invite your friends to the wedding to celebrate with you?

It is hard to believe that you really believe same sex acts are gravely wrong, and that same sex marriage is not true (both of which you’ve stated previously).

It isn’t about love in this case, even if my son was a transvestite, I would still love and accept him. But reject what he does. Nothing wrong with that.