Is it reasonable to oppose same-sex marriage politically?

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

Willing_Spirit

Active member
I know the legality of same-sex marriage is harmful to our culture, but so is the legality of many other things like pornography and I never see political movements against them. Isn’t same-sex marriage one of those cases where our religious beliefs can’t infringe on the “pursuit of happiness” of others?

Unlike abortion which is completely justified in fighting against, I don’t see the rationale behind fighting against same-sex marriage politically. It seems like it would be equivalent to Jews fighting to outlaw pork because they believe it is harmful.

Edit: I’m asking this question because I have no idea how to address the topic when it comes up in political discussions.
 
Last edited:
Stated positively:
Is the family an important structure for a healthy society?
Is there any other way to have families, and have them flourish, than healthy marriages? (not denying that gay couples adopt children successfully, but they don’t get children at The Baby Store. And not denying that single parents and grandparents can be family)
Can society survive without healthy 2 parent families?
Are they worth affirming and protecting?
 
It seems you answered most of your questions in parentheses. Regardless, I don’t see the relevance of the questions to what I asked. The legality of same-sex marriage doesn’t deprive society of flourishing families.
 
Willing_Spirit said:
It seems you answered most of your questions in parentheses. Regardless, I don’t see the relevance of the questions to what I asked. The legality of same-sex marriage doesn’t deprive society of flourishing families.
Click to expand...
Many people would disagree that same sex marriage equivalence doesn’t harm “the family”. It’s really not about what gay people do in their homes or in their union ceremonies per se, or about having insurance rights. It’s about deception. Deception has obvious harms to the good that is involved in the deception. See Romans 1 as to deception.
I personally do not spend a bunch of time or effort fighting against civil unions. Don’t have the sphere of influence to do much about it, other than talk here.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunatley, many people already don’t value “the family” anymore, and I guess that plays in to my dilemma. Where is the line drawn when legislating according to values? Again, do Jews have any ground to stand on if they were to push for outlawing pork? Surely it is harmful to their society when their kids see people eating pork like it is no big deal everywhere they go.
 
I could write on this all day from both viewpoints, but the main reason to oppose same-sex marriage politically is out of concern that Catholics and others who do not want to recognize or cater to same-sex marriage (for example, the cake decorator or florist or rental property who doesn’t want to supply their goods or services for a gay marriage) may be forced to do so under anti-discrimination laws. This is an interference with the freedom of religion as set forth in the Constitution.

I think that’s all you should need to say when the subject comes up.
 
The more Catholics abandon Church teaching in the political sphere, the more difficult it will be to catechize new generations of Catholics.

If opposing same-sex marriages is now considered not politically justified, then what’s next on the docket? There’s always another inconvenient doctrine.
 
As far as I understand it the primary reason for opposing “same-sex marriage” is because the state has no power to define or interfere in marriage. It is something that is outside the realm of their authority.
 
I guess that makes sense. Do you know if there is any difference between a marriage and a civil union when it comes to legal matters like taxes?
 
Willing_Spirit said:
I know the legality of same-sex marriage is harmful to our culture, but so is the legality of many other things like pornography and I never see political movements against them. Isn’t same-sex marriage one of those cases where our religious beliefs can’t infringe on the “pursuit of happiness” of others?

Unlike abortion which is completely justified in fighting against, I don’t see the rationale behind fighting against same-sex marriage politically. It seems like it would be equivalent to Jews fighting to outlaw pork because they believe it is harmful.

Edit: I’m asking this question because I have no idea how to address the topic when it comes up in political discussions.
Click to expand...
The average secular person probably won’t accept any argument because same-sex relations are already saturated in the culture, increasingly from early childhood, but the State has always had a vested interest in promoting monogamy because the family is the foundation for civilization and raising children in a stable environment. As that attitude shifts to viewing marriage as a form of companionship, marriage in itself becomes an increasingly meaningless thing. It’s essentially a glorified form of friendship and the children in that environment are traded around according to the whims of the parents and the courts.

Of course, this was already a big problem before LGBT+ rose to power but it’s another plate taken out of the armor.

So no, it has nothing in common with something that is disciplinary, such as prohibitions on pork and shellfish, or observing fasts on certain days of Lent.
 
Last edited:
Willing_Spirit said:
I know the legality of same-sex marriage is harmful to our culture, but so is the legality of many other things like pornography and I never see political movements against them. …
Click to expand...
There is the non-partisan and non-sectarian National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE).
 
sealabeag said:
As far as I understand it the primary reason for opposing “same-sex marriage” is because the state has no power to define or interfere in marriage. It is something that is outside the realm of their authority.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the USA has conflated religious marriage with civil marriage and attached all kinds of economic rights and benefits to it. If it was two separate things, like you went to registry office to marry civilly and get all the legal benefits, and then you could also be married in the church of your choice if you wished to be married in the eyes of your church, then it would be easier.

As it is, there is no way to be religiously married in the USA without having the state also involved if you wish to be legally seen as a married person by the federal and state government.
 
I think it’s worth asking - since the breakdown of the traditional family structure in the USA, what is the social cost of broken homes, broken marriages, illegitimate children? What is the literal cost of adjudicating child support and child custody cases?
Is gay marriage going to add to these social costs and literal court costs?
 
Last edited:
Most arguments against gay marriage could be used against remarriage, following a divorce. Yes, there are reasons to oppose, and some arguments against it. Personally, I wish government would get out of the whole affair. Leave marriage to church’s only, each according to their beliefs. If needed, file documents for civil unions for all married couples, for legal purposes only, and quit using the word that has a religious connotation.
 
The root of the problem is not SSM but the separation of the sexual act and reproduction (artificial birth control and consequent abortion). As a result, anyone can have sex and marriage does not have to be anything more than going steady with more accoutrements.

The first crack in the foundation of marriage was the redefinition of it as not a covenant relationship but as a contract, which was a Protestant idea from a few hundred years ago.

Now we even have no-fault divorce, the only contract that can be broken unilaterally with no compensation.

Same-sex marriage is just the small final top on a huge mountain.
 
Here is article from the Theological Studies (peer-reviewed journal managed by American jesuits) http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/69/69.3/69.3.9.pdf and we can see that still discussions are happening. Yes - Church has said some word, but the reason develops and doctrine as well. The basic principles - dignity, humanity, charity, love - remains, but their interpretation develops.

This article and relevant discussions can be abhorrent for some, but it consciously captures the commonsense view of many catholics. We can call them cafeteria catholics, but nonetheless - they are trying to go towards God. And doing it with reason, personal experience and wisdom and compassion and charity. Who are we to judge them?
 
Last edited:
Willing_Spirit said:
.

Edit: I’m asking this question because I have no idea how to address the topic when it comes up in political discussions.
Click to expand...
Same sex marriage is against the Natural Law of God. This law was defined in Medieval times and still stands in the Church today.
God created male and female and charged them to become one flesh and to procreate. The idea of the qualities of the marriage sacrament expanded after Vat II beyond procreation primarily to also focus on love, the union of the couple and their service fulfilling their vocation. These are also important features of the sacrament.

In same sex marriage there is only one sex, it is an imbalanced union according to the Catholic Church and God’s law, and does not fit natural law regarding marriage. It is not a vocation couples are called to although people argue it is loving, and is a union and can be characterized by service. Indeed there are plenty of homosexual people in the service of the church.

Marrriage is a sacrament of the Church, it is one of the 7 Sacraments available and given us as a gift and a channel for grace by God.
In marriage the bond is one of a union, two become one in marriage, and this union also creates a domestic church in the service of the married couple, fulfilling their vocation and serving the Church and the community.
Marriage and Holy Orders are Sacraments of Service.
From a secular standpoint, addressing this topic in political discussions , I dont think is possible in today’s aggressive secular society. But from a Catholic standpoint, it can be well defended as marriage is a sacrament of the church and conforms to natural law.

As far as Jewish and pork, it is part of their Torah, one of their Commandments. They cannot eat pork according to that. There is law that meat has to be killed in certain ways (in dedicated abattoirs) to conform to both Muslim and Jewish law.
Jews pushing to outlaw pork would be like Catholics pushing to outlaw homosexual unions or sex before marriage, or non sacramental marriages. In this secular society that doesnt work well. Tasmania in Australia was one of the last places to outlaw homosexual unions , those found guilty of it were thrown in jail, fined or whatever the judge found an appropriate punishment.
 
Last edited:
Politically they will do whatever is necessary for re-election. To oppose or support anything in the political arena, is totally dependent on popularity.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top