Help, I’m starting to question if the politics of gay marriage is really wrong

[spectre88]

Let me preface what I am about to ask by saying I currently stand with the Church when it comes to gay marriage. Although, I would never question the Sacrament of traditional marriage, I am starting to question the politics of gay marriage. However, let me be clear that even if I disagreed with the Church I would fully obey the Church’s teachings on the subject; one reason would be because of the Church’s authority to bind and loose (Mat 16).

With that said I am starting to question the Church’s reasoning’s. I am probably just ignorant to the argument but that’s why I’m here to hopefully be enlightened.

My understanding is that the Church recognizes the legality of marriages outside of the Church but not the Sacrament of the marriage outside the Church. This is why when a couple is married outside of the Church, the Church does not re-marry the said couple but rather blesses their marriage thus fulfilling the Sacrament, correct?

Well, if there is a true difference between the legality and sacrament of marriage, and the Church and the State are indeed separate then why do we bother trying to make the State see it our way? I guess what I feel is, as long as gay couples don’t try to get married within the Church and respect our beliefs and our rules then I’m starting to see less of a problem letting them do whatever crazy sins they feel like doing. I mean it’s not like we the Church are campaigning to make co-habitation illegal. Really, isn’t it just as sinful to have sexual relations outside of marriage regardless of sexual orientation? Isn’t that just as valid of a sin that we should seek it to be illegal?

I will say though that my main reason for legally opposing gay marriage is because what I mentioned in the previous paragraph that their movement does have some very radical people that would try to infiltrate the Church. That’s personally where I feel the line should be drawn but then again I must admit that I worry it might be too late at that point. So, I don’t need convincing on that level. Therefore, if you do have a response please don’t bring that part up because I already oppose the legality of gay marriage for that reason.

Just FYI, I posted this in the social justice section because really I’m looking to discuss the legality of gay marriage if anything. Anyway, please pray for me and only reply with love. I’m not trying to challenge the Church, rather I’m looking to be corrected in what I feel is my current flawed way of thinking.

 

[fix]

Well, if there is a true difference between the legality and sacrament of marriage, and the Church and the State are indeed separate then why do we bother trying to make the State see it our way?

There are plenty of things one could offer, but I will start by providing this quote from the last Pope:

I am thinking, for example, of the strong pressure from the European Parliament to recognize homosexual unions as an alternative type of family, with the right to adopt children. It is legitimate and even necessary to ask whether this is not the work of another ideology of evil, more subtle and hidden, perhaps, intent upon exploiting human rights themselves against man and against the family.

 

[manualman]

Good question. It matters because the Church is not an island at sea while the rest of the world is an irrelevant mainland that we shun. Our mission is to proclaim the truth to the world. Your reasoning is correct to the point where it means we should not declare gay people the enemies or demonize them. We don’t oppose this because “gays are the enemy.” We oppose it because two men “married” is an impossibility in the true definition of the word and ignoring that contradiction is a form of cooperation with the devaluation ongoing in our culture for the identity of what marriage IS.

But take a step back and ponder for a moment just why government is involved in marriage in the first place. Why the heck is a license required for a feeling? Answer: marriage isn’t fundamentally about feelings! It is about a relationship of self sacrificing love so profound that it is inherently ordered towards the creation and nurturing of new human life. The government got involved in the distant past when such men were still capable of recognizing the vast benefits to society of healthy intact families and the destructive social cost of broken ones.

When you realize this, it becomes obvious why civil government shouldn’t permit ‘gay marriage.’ They don’t remotely qualify for the reasons governments originally sought to grant favored status to married couples in the first place!

Remember: it’s absurd to think that the government needs to license people’s feelings. Marriage is less about feelings than about committment, self-sacrifice and choosing to place the good of the spouse above one’s own (which is ordered towards making MORE people to put above the good of yourself).

 

[fix]

More from the http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
:

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

 

[ExGratia]

Just some clarifications on the OP:
The Church DOES believe in the sacramentality of some marriages outside of the Catholic Church. These would be marriages contracted between two non-Catholic Christians. As a Sacrament, these would be indissoluble.

Also, when one man and one woman, who are not baptised Christians, marry, there can be a valid natural marriage. Of course, if this couple chooses to become Catholic, their marriage will be blessed and become sacramental.

A marriage between two people of the same sex cannot be valid, sacramental or recognized. God instituted marriage in Genesis with Adam and Eve (natural marriage) and then elevated it to a sacrament at the wedding at Cana.

The santity of marriage must be protected and it cannot be redefined to fit what the secular liberals want. I could go on (regarding the negative impact on children and the dangers of the state trying to redefine natural law/the state trying to be god, the way things are being reworded so that one who speaks the truth is accused of bigotry), but I hope those clarifications at the top will help. God bless you!

 

[Corki]

Also, when one man and one woman, who are not baptised Christians, marry, there can be a valid natural marriage. Of course, if this couple chooses to become Catholic, their marriage will be blessed and become sacramental.

Even then, there is no separate “blessing”. If two unbaptized people marry and later are baptized (as Catholics or other Christians), their marriage becomes sacramental automatically at the time of their baptism.

spectre88, if this is the basis of your concern you are starting from a faulty premise.

The objection to same sex “marriage” isn’t to the wedding ceremony; it’s to the forced recognition of a union that is a false attempt at something we believe to be sacred. It mocks marriage.

 

[ExGratia]

Even then, there is no separate “blessing”. If two unbaptized people marry and later are baptized (as Catholics or other Christians), their marriage becomes sacramental automatically at the time of their baptism.
.

Thank you for the clarification!

 

[GEddie]

The Church does not fight gay marriage because of the sin involved; there are plenty of sins that it does not seek to make illegal.

It fights gay marriage because unlike the other examples, it fundamentally attacks the nature of marriage. Marriage is the bodily union between one man and one woman. Full stop. Two men or two women cannot be validly married, and marriage must not be redefined for political gain.

If the civil society can redefine something as basically human as marriage, it is unlikely to stop with gay marriage.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Bev17243]

the advocates for same sex marriages are not happy with state recornizing their marriage. They are now attempting to force priests/pastors from any Christian church to marry them in church. Whether Catholic or Protestant, gay marriage is against biblical teachings but they are trying to force people marry them despite that. I just heard that there is a case in my state where one of the gay marriage advocates wanted to use Catholic chapel for same sex marriage and was denied. He is now suing local Diochese for “discrimination”. There is no tactic, no matter how vile, they won’t use to force the Church to acknowledge this sinful behavior.

 

[edwest2]

Same-sex marriage was voted against in all states, and twice in California. Only through the actions of courts and certain politicians did it become legal in some states.

Since that didn’t work out very well, how about Civil Unions?

"Definition: Civil unions are legal contracts between partners that are recognized by a state or government as conferring all or some of the rights conferred by marriage, but without the implicit historical and religious meaning associated with the word “marriage.”

"In the United States, some states have legalized civil unions as an option for same-sex couples who cannot legally marry.

“Civil unions were once distinct from domestic partnerships, but the terms are now used more-or-less interchangeably.”

Then, they tried getting Domestic Partner benefits, for example, in Michigan, but the Governor signed a ban into law. The reaction: “The move is a blow to gay and lesbian activists throughout the state.”

Source: annarbor.com/news/gov-rick-snyder-signs-domestic-partner-benefits-ban-into-law/

How will the state with the highest unemployment in the country pay for Domestic Partner benefits?

Whatever goes on behind closed doors is nobody’s business, but being asked to pay for it? Binding legal contracts could be drawn up to solve the issues of same-sex partners. But those options are no options according to freedomtomarry.org:

"Civil union and domestic partnerships are a second-class status, and when people take on all the commitments and responsibilities of marriage they should not be treated like second-class citizens. While these legal mechanisms provide a measure of protections to same-sex couples and their families, they are no substitute for the full measure of respect, clarity, security and responsibilities of marriage itself. They exclude people from marriage and create an unfair system that often does not work in emergency situations when people need it most.

"The only way to achieve equality is to provide the freedom to marry for all committed couples.

“Despite their inequality, some states are creating these legal mechanisms to recognize gay couples. While this does show progress and provides same-sex couples with important responsibilities and protections previously withheld, we also see the repeal of these laws when marriage equality is achieved because they are found unequal to marriage.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[1ke]

My understanding is that the Church recognizes the legality of marriages outside of the Church but not the Sacrament of the marriage outside the Church.

This is not a correct understanding. The Church recognizes the sacrament of marriage between two baptized non-Catholics whenever they marry civilly. It recognizes the validity of natural marriage among the unbaptized.

This is why when a couple is married outside of the Church, the Church does not re-marry the said couple but rather blesses their marriage thus fulfilling the Sacrament, correct?

Nope. If two non-Catholics marry each other validly and enter the Church, the Church does nothing. Their marriage is already valid and a sacrament (sacramental if both are baptized).

Well, if there is a true difference between the legality and sacrament of marriage, and the Church and the State are indeed separate then why do we bother trying to make the State see it our way?

The Church doesn’t, we don’t, and I think your problem is solved. The problem is that you had an incorrect understanding of the Church’s teaching on marriage.

I guess what I feel is, as long as gay couples don’t try to get married within the Church and respect our beliefs and our rules then I’m starting to see less of a problem letting them do whatever crazy sins they feel like doing.

The Church must oppose what is wrong and sinful, period. It does not take a stance of it being “ok” if they want to sin. Our call as Christians is to be the light of the world, to show people the way to the Father, to help them turn from their sin.

Marriage between two people of the same sex is not possible.

I mean it’s not like we the Church are campaigning to make co-habitation illegal.

It used to be. The Church lost that fight. Don’t be confused by what is currently legal, there are many things that are wrong that used to be iillegal and have been turned into legal status with an invented “right to privacy”.

Really, isn’t it just as sinful to have sexual relations outside of marriage regardless of sexual orientation?

Yes., certainly it is sinful.

Isn’t that just as valid of a sin that we should seek it to be illegal?

What do you believe the purpose of the civil law to be?

 

[Brendan]

My understanding is that the Church recognizes the legality of marriages outside of the Church but not the Sacrament of the marriage outside the Church. This is why when a couple is married outside of the Church, the Church does not re-marry the said couple but rather blesses their marriage thus fulfilling the Sacrament, correct?.

Any Marriage between two Baptized people is, by definition, Sacramental. As such, it cannot be dissolved.

This is true if two Lutherans get married in a Lutheran Church. It is just as Sacramental as if two Catholics were married in front of the Pope himself.

The Church recognizes those as fully and completely as we do our own.

Likewise, if two Jews get married, or two Muslims. They are not Baptized, so the marriage is not Sacramental, but it is still binding. The Church considers Mary and Joseph, or Joachim and Anna to be fully married.

Those marriages are called ‘Natural’ marriages, as they too fulfil the nature or essence of Marriage. What they lack is the Salvic Grace that a Sacrament confers.

The marriage is still binding on the couple, except for very rare circumstances, such as one person converts to the Faith and the other makes their life difficult for it.

The legality is simply ( or should simply be) a legal recognition of the state of marriage that exists.

Since the the Institution of Marriage predated the State, and is not an invention of the State, the State has no authority to define it, but can only recognize that is exists.

The state of marriage cannot exist between two people of the same sex (either a Sacramental marriage, or a Natural Marriage). Thus the State would err if it attempts to recognize what does not exist. It would be the equivalent of redefinting accounting law so that 2-2=2 .

The State did not invent the principles of mathematics, so it cannot redefine them either.

 

[buffalo]

A good read:

CASTI CONNUBII
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE
TO THE VENERABLE BRETHREN, PATRIARCHS, PRIMATES, ARCHBISHOPS, BISHOPS, AND OTHER LOCAL ORDINARIES
ENJOYING PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE.

 

[spectre88]

Any Marriage between two Baptized people is, by definition, Sacramental. As such, it cannot be dissolved.

This is true if two Lutherans get married in a Lutheran Church. It is just as Sacramental as if two Catholics were married in front of the Pope himself.

The Church recognizes those as fully and completely as we do our own.

Likewise, if two Jews get married, or two Muslims. They are not Baptized, so the marriage is not Sacramental, but it is still binding. The Church considers Mary and Joseph, or Joachim and Anna to be fully married.

Those marriages are called ‘Natural’ marriages, as they too fulfil the nature or essence of Marriage. What they lack is the Salvic Grace that a Sacrament confers.

The marriage is still binding on the couple, except for very rare circumstances, such as one person converts to the Faith and the other makes their life difficult for it.

The legality is simply ( or should simply be) a legal recognition of the state of marriage that exists.

Since the the Institution of Marriage predated the State, and is not an invention of the State, the State has no authority to define it, but can only recognize that is exists.

The state of marriage cannot exist between two people of the same sex (either a Sacramental marriage, or a Natural Marriage). Thus the State would err if it attempts to recognize what does not exist. It would be the equivalent of redefinting accounting law so that 2-2=2 .

The State did not invent the principles of mathematics, so it cannot redefine them either.

Thank you EVERYONE for the great responses. Most especially thank you Brenden. I think that was the type of answer I was looking for . It was simple and I feel would speak well to the non-Christian, something I could easily share with others when the topic comes up again. Have a blessed Lent everyone, and God bless!

 

[Aboveallbereal]

As a Church we find ourselves in a difficult position here because whilst the polition we hold is logically coherent the fact is that Christianity in now a minority belief in the developed world and is a counter cultural belief disregarded by the majority when it comes into conflict with the moeurs and tenets of liberal humanism which is the real underlying belief system in the western world now.

This fact makes it difficult to defend marriage but nonetheless the mission of the Church is to do just that.

 

[ACCT]

Just FYI, I posted this in the social justice section because really I’m looking to discuss the legality of gay marriage if anything. Anyway, please pray for me and only reply with love. I’m not trying to challenge the Church, rather I’m looking to be corrected in what I feel is my current flawed way of thinking.

The source of the “rule of law” goes back to Divine Law. The Declaration of Independence uses the words, the “equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” What do these words really mean?

The ideas of the source of legitimate law were being formulated by the Catholic Church before the Magna Carta. Truth always goes back to the source of truth, which is public revelation, commonly known as the Holy Scriptures.

ANY CIVIL LAW IN TRANSGRESSION OF DIVINE LAW IS INVALID! An unjust law is no law at all! Such laws are to be defied because they do not exist. There is no basis for them. A recent example is Spain’s “laws” on marriages and adoptions. Pope Benedict has ordered citizens of Spain who work in adoption agencies to defy Spain’s new laws of illicit marriages and adoptions. Workers in adoption agencies are to refuse to fill out any paperwork or grant adoption of children to illicit and unnatural marriage unions. Spain’s new law disobeys natural law. NO HUMAN LAW AGAINST NATURAL LAW IS VALID!

There is Divine Law, Natural Law and Civil Law, in that order. Man only has control over civil law. Each type of law is separate and you cannot substitute one type of law for another type of law.

 

[royal_archer]

When the state recognizes gay marriage as the same as real marriage, then we are forced to provide gay couples the same accomodations as we offer to married couples. Such as insurance bennefits for spouses of employees, property rental, etc.

This is an intrusion into our rights.

 

[rdscheirer]

I like Neal Boortz’s take on it -Why should a conrtact between two people concern you? We live in the USA where (SUPPOSEDLY) freedom reigns.

A RIGHT is a thing that doesn’t take anything away from anyone else. Free speech, religious freedom, to own a firearm, when the libs start talking about right to health care- what is the right to take from me (I’m a Doc) for my time and effort to give them their “right” to heathcare.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

The title is defective,

Gay and marriage - an opposition. Like a kickstand on a horse.

Keep it simple: active homosexuality is an unnatural abomination that goes against God’s creation.

It is one of Lucifer’s great triumphs and the ambiguity of some catholic and christians alike makes it stronger every day. No longer “live and let live” as if that weren’t bad enough - now there are militant homosexuals with an active campaign of defamation against priests that openly speak against active homosexuality or deny communion to active lesbians that ambush priests in the sacristy just before a funeral mass.

To seek marriage on equal terms of normal man and woman relations is a direct attack against the Sacrament of Marriage. It is war…good, holy priests are being exiled for speaking the Sound Doctrine of Jesus Christ.

What’s next ??? an abridged version of the bible??? The GLBT Bible…sans any reference to homosexual depravity.

I rebuke you Satan.

 

[ACCT]

Love for homosexuals is one thing. Love of homosexuality is something entirely different.

Christians are to be firm in condemning sin, such as homosexuality. Christians are not to be swayed like branches in the wind. Fasting and prayer is our guiding star. We do not have a gallop-poll mentality. We do not obtain our beliefs from the media. The assumption that Christians need to conform to the rest of society is a clever move. It kills the transformation of society toward love. It encourages division, and even divides families.

Jesus calls us to love, not human love, but God’s love. What is love, if not salvation? One obtains salvation by obedience. Practicing homosexuality is not practicing obedience. Practicing homosexuality does not lead to God’s love. On a biblical level God has a resolute message for settling opinions. WE ARE TO LOVE ALL MEN WITHOUT CONDENSATION, BUT FIRM IN CONDEMNING SIN, SUCH AS HOMOSEXUALITY.

Opinions divide the world. The statement, “You are entitled to your opinion,” is just a continuation of that division. Jesus came to settle opinions and to unite us. Jesus taught us to be “of one mind and one heart.” Jesus’ words settle what opinions we should have about much of life. Word games aimed at division and separation do not make society one.

“Today I will speak to you about what you have forgotten: Dear Children, My name is Love. That I am among you for so much of your time is love, because the Great Love sends me. I am asking the same of you. I am asking for love in your families. I am asking that you recognize love in your brother. Only in this way, through love, will you see the Greatest Love. May fasting and prayer be your guiding star. Open your hearts to love, namely salvation. Thank you. (Our Lady’s message to Mirana on March 2, 2007).”