Is it reasonable to oppose same-sex marriage politically?

[TheLittleLady]

In the US this is settled law.

 

[farronwolf]

Unlike abortion which is completely justified in fighting against, I don’t see the rationale behind fighting against same-sex marriage politically.

As another poster has stated, politicians will say/do what is politically good for them.

This doesn’t include running on ideas like banning same sex marriage, divorce and remarriage, banning birth control or masturbation, penalizing abandonment of family, or any number of things that would be considered mortal sins. It just doesn’t sell well to voters.

Abortion is used by politicians because there are certain single issue voters that depending on party platform or a politicians stance will simply follow based on that single issue and therefore guarantee a certain number of votes for them depending on which side of the issue they take.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

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.

There’s not really any point since there aren’t any secular arguments against it. I wouldn’t mention it in a conversation.

 

[Tomhamilton]

I think it is worth fighting against, very much so. It carries the risk of being investigated by police for ‘hate crime’ unless you choose words carefully. If I were to campaign against such once extreme perversions then my wife and family would possibly desert me (as a nutcase) and I could lose a Gov. pension.
If you have the courage it is worthy of denouncing because it is now being written into the educational curriculum of the innocents at primary school levels.

 

[Freddy]

Stated positively:
Is the family an important structure for a healthy society?
Is there any other way to have families…

Yes. There are. Does everyone have to get married? No. They don’t. Do those who get married have to have children? No. They don’t. Is that the end of society? No. It isn’t.

 

[Maximian]

The legality of same-sex marriage doesn’t deprive society of flourishing families.

I must say that it is the use of the word “marriage” which offends me, rather than the concept of the legal arrangement between same sex partners amounting to it.

 

[MPat]

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.

That’s because the “front line” has moved, and now those other issues are far beyond it.

If the battle concerning fake marriages and abortion was won, people would probably move on to the next priorities, eventually reaching criminalisation of pornography.

Yes, it might be that making more extreme demands all at once would be better tactically. But that is not how majority has judged things at the moment.

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.

First, “our religious beliefs can’t infringe on the ‘pursuit of happiness’ of others” is not exactly Catholic doctrine. You seem to be giving far too much weight to democracy as understood by secularists. And even democracy as such is optional, not an end in itself.

Second, the analogy does not work. After all, Jews do not believe that eating pork is not really eating at all, and eating pork being legal does not affect them much.

But when State proclaims that two people are married, it also orders other people to treat them as if they really were married.

And now doesn’t that “infringe on the ‘pursuit of happiness’” of us? Or is that only important when the secularists would lose?

 

[pnewton]

Do those who get married have to have children? No.

This is an interesting point. I do not think there is a Catholic out there that would say the law should require couples who get married to try to have children. Yet that is Catholic teaching as well. There is not a marriage where there is an intent against having children, just as there is no marriage in same-sex unions.

Oh, and if this became the norm, it would be the downfall of a society. It is already creating issues in some countries.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Do those who get married have to have children? No.

This is an interesting point. I do not think there is a Catholic out there that would say the law should require couples who get married to try to have children. Yet that is Catholic teaching as well. There is not a marriage where there is an intent against having children, just as there is no marriage in same-sex unions.

Oh, and if this became the norm, it would be the downfall of a society. It is already creating issues in some countries.

I think you meant to say that it’s not considered to be a marriage by the Catholic Church.

 

[Anicette]

What you said about abortion being justified in fighting against and same sex marriage not is just cultural and depend on your country.

In many countries where abortion is legal even if some people disagree, and may express their opinion or object to make abortion on conscience grounds, it is not seems justified to fight against legal abortions. In fact it can even be forbidden to try to prevent abortions to happened.

And in some countries where same sex marriage is not legal or in discussion, it seems justified to fight against it.

More objectively. Marriage build a family. It legitimates children and give them two parents, normally a mother and a father. If we create same sex marriage two people of the same sex can become “spouses” even if it cannot happened naturally (two people of different sex come together to procreate and built a comunity of live).

Depend on where you live and national legislation, but marriage justify adoption by two people of the same sex. It is not an imitation to what is naturally possible (a man and a woman become a family). It is depriving deliberately a child from the possibility to have a family with a mother and a father.

It can brings officially a child two mothers or two fathers, even if it is impossible to come from that configuration.

It can justify assisted procration and surrogacy for people who have no infertility, but simply for social and personal reasons. And your taxpayers will support this choice if you live in a country where healthcare is supported by the society. Children will be deliberately produced in this situation.

It would impact the freedom of parents to raise their children as they want, because school education will include the protection of same sex families and would reject any objection of same sex marriage as “homophobic”.

In all cases it impacts wrongly children. Children are enough to be justified.

 

[pnewton]

I think you meant to say that it’s not considered to be a marriage by the Catholic Church.

I said what I meant - what I believe, using the definition of marriage within the Catholic Church.

 

[goout]

goout:

Stated positively:
Is the family an important structure for a healthy society?
Is there any other way to have families…

Yes. There are. Does everyone have to get married? No. They don’t. Do those who get married have to have children? No. They don’t. Is that the end of society? No. It isn’t.

Why did you distort my post? Here it is without cherry picking:

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?

Can you make a reply?
Do alternative families pick up babies at The Baby Store?

 

[blackforest]

Agreed. I think a better secular argument could be made against adultery, and we don’t even ban that.

 

[Vico]

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.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons (approved by Pontiff John Paul II, 2003)

From the order of right reason
From the biological and anthropological order
From the social order
From the legal order

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[DeSales111]

What is at stake is religious freedom. We know same sex marriage is against the will of God, but some politicians are hell bent on forcing THEIR will on the Church. If same sex marriage stayed secular most do not care as we can not police others sins, but if they are going to force our clergy to sin and violate their religious freedom, and these hell bent liberals will do just that, then we will be in trouble and other religious freedoms will fall too. Legalizing same sex marriage is a knock on the door, the next step will be them trying to take a step into the door, then the door would be wide open. We must oppose that.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

goout:

Stated positively:
Is the family an important structure for a healthy society?
Is there any other way to have families…

Yes. There are. Does everyone have to get married? No. They don’t. Do those who get married have to have children? No. They don’t. Is that the end of society? No. It isn’t.

Why did you distort my post? Here it is without cherry picking:

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?

Can you make a reply?
Do alternative families pick up babies at The Baby Store?

I’ve got no problem with two parent heterosexual families. But it’s not an either/or. A small percentage of gay marriages or childless marriages or multiple partner marriages aren’t going to cause the collapse of society. It’s nonsensical even to suggest it.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

If same sex marriage stayed secular

It mostly does.

 

[goout]

That’s not what I suggested. But you know that.

 

[Fets]

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 Catholics can’t really look to the Constitution to guarantee religious freedom. The day is fast coming when we don’t have religious freedom in this country (most of the responses have been U.S. specific).
Amy Coney Barrett and the judge who is a Knight of Columbus can’t serve as judges without their faith being called into question. The government sued the Little Sisters of the Poor for 10 years trying to force them to pay for contraception.

When do Catholics say enough is enough? If we are not tolerated to practice our religion freely in this country, then we shouldn’t recognize this country as legetimate. Like the history of Catholics in England. The problem is there isn’t a New World to live a better freer life in.

 

[Fets]

First, “our religious beliefs can’t infringe on the ‘pursuit of happiness’ of others” is not exactly Catholic doctrine. You seem to be giving far too much weight to democracy as understood by secularists. And even democracy as such is optional, not an end in itself.

Hear hear! Isn’t the end goal the promulgation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
I think Catholics really need to examine what participating in multicultural secularist democracies is worth. If these political systems, and the policies of these governments hinders us from spreading the Gospel and making the whole world Catholic, then we should be in favor of creating new political systems.

Catholics aren’t exactly a fringe group. We’re the largest religious group in the U.S., and in the world. If we started to say, “We want a different way”, it would have a huge impact. That’s my answer to anyone that will say this is ‘Quixotic’. Democracy hasn’t been around for long folks, and I think most Americans can see the writing on the wall anyways.