Is it wrong to not oppose secular gay marriage?

[Butaperson]

I am coming from an extremely liberal background, and I have heard all the arguments for gay marriage. At the moment, now, the only one that could potentially sway me is separation of church and state. In the secular world, the only thing that makes a marriage a marriage is the government, and the government can’t be affected by the Church. So if we’re going to oppose gay marriage under the state, there need to be convincing non-religious reasons and so far I haven’t found any.
Secular society has already stripped away the majority of what Catholics say is necessary in a marriage, including even the promise to stay together. I would think that by the time divorce is in the picture, it might as well not even be marriage. So how does adding homosexuality into the equation make it any worse? And how can I argue against such marriage?

 

[Vico]

I am coming from an extremely liberal background, and I have heard all the arguments for gay marriage. At the moment, now, the only one that could potentially sway me is separation of church and state. In the secular world, the only thing that makes a marriage a marriage is the government, and the government can’t be affected by the Church. So if we’re going to oppose gay marriage under the state, there need to be convincing non-religious reasons and so far I haven’t found any.
Secular society has already stripped away the majority of what Catholics say is necessary in a marriage, including even the promise to stay together. I would think that by the time divorce is in the picture, it might as well not even be marriage. So how does adding homosexuality into the equation make it any worse? And how can I argue against such marriage?

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

---

---

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.

The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY
FAMILY, MARRIAGE AND “DE FACTO” UNIONS

With regard to the recent legislative attempts to make the family and de facto unions equivalent, including homosexual unions (it is good to keep in mind that their juridical recognition is the first step toward their equivalency), members of parliament should be reminded about their grave responsibility to oppose them, for “lawmakers, and in particular Catholic members of parliaments, should not favor this type of legislation with their vote because it is contrary to the common good and the truth about man and thus truly unjust”.[18] These legal initiatives present all the characteristics of non-conformity to the natural law which makes them incompatible with the dignity of the law.

[18] PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY, Statement on the Resolution by the European Parliament making de facto unions, including same sex unions, equal to the family, March 17, 2000.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001109_de-facto-unions_en.html

 

[Elizium23]

This organization recently appeared on my radar: Discussing Marriage. They offer myriad powerful secular arguments for traditional marriage without appealing to political or religious sentimentality. Anyone who is not convinced by these arguments must be seriously lost.

 

[TK421]

I am coming from an extremely liberal background, and I have heard all the arguments for gay marriage. At the moment, now, the only one that could potentially sway me is separation of church and state. In the secular world, the only thing that makes a marriage a marriage is the government, and the government can’t be affected by the Church. So if we’re going to oppose gay marriage under the state, there need to be convincing non-religious reasons and so far I haven’t found any.
Secular society has already stripped away the majority of what Catholics say is necessary in a marriage, including even the promise to stay together. I would think that by the time divorce is in the picture, it might as well not even be marriage. So how does adding homosexuality into the equation make it any worse? And how can I argue against such marriage?

You are correct that much of marital culture, both unofficially and through unwarranted civil support, has been damaged prior to the LGBT issue ever coming onto center stage, however the civil recognition of a same-sex union as marriage (which is not marriage, nor does it offer the basic moral and social unit to society that marriage does) simply further impedes it. Indeed, it is only because of prior erosion to sexual ethics and families that the LGBT movement has been able to come about. Otherwise, it never could have.

There are - in my opinion - highly satisfying explanations for why marriage can only be and must only be between a man and a woman, committed to each other exclusively and in unity. If this truly is an issue for you (which it was and continues to be for me) then I assume you will be willing to read a good deal about it. I recommend “What is Marriage: Man and Woman. A Defense”.

The book, you will notice, doesn’t actually specifically address same-sex marriage, but simply goes into full detail about what marriage is, and then from that you are able to deduce how same-sex marriage (among other things) is not it.

The first answer to your question is that a Catholic (and anybody) is morally obligated to oppose civil recognition of same-sex marriage, and to accept homosexual sex as a grave sin. Same-sex marriage (or, in the broad sense, revisionist views of marriage in general) have real world, tangible, harmful consequences. If this is something that you have severe doubts over, I would look into it very, very carefully. I’m a young guy coming out of several years of non-religion and indecisiveness after a fundamentalist upbringing, and this is a painful and uncomfortable view for me to endorse also, but I really am authentically convinced that the Church is correct and the current whims of secular liberal culture is wrong.

 

[runningdude]

I am coming from an extremely liberal background, and I have heard all the arguments for gay marriage. At the moment, now, the only one that could potentially sway me is separation of church and state. In the secular world, the only thing that makes a marriage a marriage is the government, and the government can’t be affected by the Church. So if we’re going to oppose gay marriage under the state, there need to be convincing non-religious reasons and so far I haven’t found any.
Secular society has already stripped away the majority of what Catholics say is necessary in a marriage, including even the promise to stay together. I would think that by the time divorce is in the picture, it might as well not even be marriage. So how does adding homosexuality into the equation make it any worse? And how can I argue against such marriage?

“Secular” or “civil” marriage is a myth. Marriage is fundamentally a natural mechanism, that can only be regulated by civil authorities within limited circumstances.

The state does not create the marriage bond, but rather encourages people to enter the marriage bond by attaching certain privileges to couples who marry.

The state could theoretically provide benefits of any sort to anybody; but it cannot create a marriage where no marriage is possible.

 

[glendab]

Hello Butaperson.

I am coming from an extremely liberal background, and I have heard all the arguments for gay marriage. At the moment, now, the only one that could potentially sway me is separation of church and state. In the secular world, the only thing that makes a marriage a marriage is the government, and the government can’t be affected by the Church. So if we’re going to oppose gay marriage under the state, there need to be convincing non-religious reasons and so far I haven’t found any.
Secular society has already stripped away the majority of what Catholics say is necessary in a marriage, including even the promise to stay together. I would think that by the time divorce is in the picture, it might as well not even be marriage. So how does adding homosexuality into the equation make it any worse? And how can I argue against such marriage?

Perhaps you could do some research on the subject from a mere secular standpoint and get back to us. Check out the bath houses and porn shops and gay bars and other seedy places for about six months like a objective journalist on a quest for the story of stories and get back to us. Make sure you visit with the AIDs stations over in Africa were thousands are dying from HIV. Or better yet, just go to the CDC and do some research about all the associated medical and psychological problems associated with LGBT lifestyles and those whose lives are effected by them and see the human wasteland it creates and then get back to us. Or maybe ask a child who became the "love object’ of a homosexual and was seduced or worse. Ask him or her if he feels accepting of the homosexual lifestyle and would like to “marry” the person who devastated his or her young life. There are quite a few police departments and social service agencies that could tell you the very real harm from this inclination they see day in and day out. See if you can then see some of the real harm to society this type of disorder does. I think if you did this you’d have to see the very real reasons why most sensible folks are upset about it. It isn’t just about religion then, is it? There are many non-religious arguments against it. But there are some powerful people who’d like us to swallow a few more things before they get through wrecking our country.

Glenda

 

[johnmann]

A lot of the replies here seem to be saying that traditional marriage is unique and good but they don’t address why gay marriage must be opposed. In other words, isn’t it possible to accept everything good and unique about traditional marriage and still believe gay marriage isn’t, on balance, bad?

First, let’s stipulate that I’m not against gay marriage because I want to deny hospital visitation rights to gay couples or I want them to pay higher taxes. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to extend civil benefits to more people. I’m talking about marriage narrowly. All else being equal, why should we oppose same-sex marriage? Because Catholics should want to promote the Catholic view of marriage.

A few of my Protestant friends tell me they were rebaptized. As a Catholic, I know there’s no such thing. I bite my tongue but if asked for an honest opinion I would voice it and I would promote in general the idea of ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Likewise, for marriage. It’s complicated by the fact that in a democracy we can actually exercise some control over how the law defines “marriage.” If it were up to me, the state would not be involved in marriage at all. But if it must be, I must naturally favor the Catholic view.

One objection to that might be, “Okay, so you can have your Catholic view but you can’t impose it on the rest of us,” to which I completely agree. I can’t impose it. I don’t have an army. We aren’t imposing Catholic marriage by merely making the case for it.

 

[YoungTradCath]

There is no fundamentally secular marriage. Marriage is a natural institution created by God that was elevated in dignity by Jesus to a sacrament. Natural marriage still exists and always will exist, however.

As someone else said, the government’s role in marriage is to ensure that marriage is respected, not to do what it wants with it. It has precisely zero authority in that regard.

 

[SeekerM]

I don’t think there’d be much opposition if they didn’t insist on calling it marriage.

What’s wrong with “civil unions”?

Even Obama said he was against gay “marriage” when he first ran for president.

What happened?

 

[Elizium23]

It’s about redefining and then destroying marriage, even if we’re going to play word games and slip them in as “civil unions” instead of calling a spade a spade. The sad fact of the matter is that people see no compelling interest for the state to promote and preserve fruitful family unions anymore, because everyone has bought the Population Control story, hook line and sinker.

 

[Vico]

I don’t think there’d be much opposition if they didn’t insist on calling it marriage.

What’s wrong with “civil unions”?

Even Obama said he was against gay “marriage” when he first ran for president.

What happened?

The Pontifical Commission expressed it this way, that the related “legal initiatives present all the characteristics of non-conformity to the natural law which makes them incompatible with the dignity of the law”.

 

[johnmann]

The sad fact of the matter is that people see no compelling interest for the state to promote and preserve fruitful family unions anymore, because everyone has bought the Population Control story, hook line and sinker.

I don’t see the compelling state interest because I haven’t bought the socialist story, hook, line, and sinker.

 

[sw85]

I am coming from an extremely liberal background, and I have heard all the arguments for gay marriage. At the moment, now, the only one that could potentially sway me is separation of church and state. In the secular world, the only thing that makes a marriage a marriage is the government, and the government can’t be affected by the Church. So if we’re going to oppose gay marriage under the state, there need to be convincing non-religious reasons and so far I haven’t found any.

It’s quite the opposite, actually. Laws are promulgated to serve the common good, not because they don’t fail to serve the common good. That means there needs to be a positive reason for a law to be promulgated.

Marriage (actual marriage, not gay “marriage”) serves the common good by being the bedrock of family formation, the means by which society’s existence is perpetuated. Gay “marriage” does no such thing. There is no reason for it.

Secular society has already stripped away the majority of what Catholics say is necessary in a marriage, including even the promise to stay together. I would think that by the time divorce is in the picture, it might as well not even be marriage. So how does adding homosexuality into the equation make it any worse? And how can I argue against such marriage?

When something is broken, you don’t throw your hands up and let the people who broke it break it even further. You stop them from breaking it further, then try to repair the damage. In other words, our proper course of action should be to outlaw no-fault divorce, not to further contribute to the degradation of marriage by adding in other nonsense.

 

[glendab]

Hello John.

A lot of the replies here seem to be saying that traditional marriage is unique and good but they don’t address why gay marriage must be opposed. In other words, isn’t it possible to accept everything good and unique about traditional marriage and still believe gay marriage isn’t, on balance, bad?

First, let’s stipulate that I’m not against gay marriage because I want to deny hospital visitation rights to gay couples or I want them to pay higher taxes. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to extend civil benefits to more people. I’m talking about marriage narrowly. All else being equal, why should we oppose same-sex marriage? Because Catholics should want to promote the Catholic view of marriage.

A few of my Protestant friends tell me they were rebaptized. As a Catholic, I know there’s no such thing. I bite my tongue but if asked for an honest opinion I would voice it and I would promote in general the idea of ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

Likewise, for marriage. It’s complicated by the fact that in a democracy we can actually exercise some control over how the law defines “marriage.” If it were up to me, the state would not be involved in marriage at all. But if it must be, I must naturally favor the Catholic view.

One objection to that might be, “Okay, so you can have your Catholic view but you can’t impose it on the rest of us,” to which I completely agree. I can’t impose it. I don’t have an army. We aren’t imposing Catholic marriage by merely making the case for it.

I just got in from a little Bible group I go to on Mondays after Morning Mass and between the Eucharist and the topic, you question:“why should we oppose same-sex marriage?” is grossly offensive to me. We just got done discussing among other things, the 1st Holy Martyrs of Rome, whose Feast day is today. You ask why we oppose same-sex “marriage?” If the ONLY reason you oppose it is because the Church does, you’d be doing well. There are plenty of reasons, but that one would be good enough. Simple obedience is a great blessing and if you haven’t got it, pray for it.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hell o SeekerM.

I don’t think there’d be much opposition if they didn’t insist on calling it marriage.

What’s wrong with “civil unions”?

Even Obama said he was against gay “marriage” when he first ran for president.

What happened?

Simple - he lied to get elected. He is a very fickle man.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello John.

I don’t see the compelling state interest because I haven’t bought the socialist story, hook, line, and sinker.

I’m confused. Are you calling Elizium a Socialist or are you stating that the ACS and SSM stuff is part of a Socialist agenda? I’m hoping you answer.

Glenda

 

[TheSeeker2014]

I am coming from an extremely liberal background, and I have heard all the arguments for gay marriage. At the moment, now, the only one that could potentially sway me is separation of church and state. In the secular world, the only thing that makes a marriage a marriage is the government, and the government can’t be affected by the Church. So if we’re going to oppose gay marriage under the state, there need to be convincing non-religious reasons and so far I haven’t found any.
Secular society has already stripped away the majority of what Catholics say is necessary in a marriage, including even the promise to stay together. I would think that by the time divorce is in the picture, it might as well not even be marriage. So how does adding homosexuality into the equation make it any worse? And how can I argue against such marriage?

I am not even going to bother with reading all the replies but this is how I see the matter. people can take it or leave it. bash it or accept it. I really do not care as this is what makes sense to me.

First of all, I do not agree with homosexuality.

Secondly, marriage is 3 fold… two people and God (male and female)

Thirdly, marriage is a biblical thing. A Godly thing.

The devil likes to mimic God.
Why would religious people be upset about gay marriage? They say it is a sin. Ok. They say God created marriage and this is perverting it. Ok.
However…

They are not asking religious authority. They are getting a legal licence from the STATE.
If that is religious authority… then why are religious people getting licences from the state esp if they are claiming marriage to be created by God not by gov. Why need the permission of the state when in all honestly the state could care less if or who someone is married.
They are not asking to be married in churches. Most are married in court houses. They want the state rights of marriage. Not religious.
Do not get me wrong. It is nice to have a piece of paper about marriage… but should not the piece of paper from a Rev have more significance than from the state? Marriage is 3 fold bibically- male female and God
Gay marriage would be 2 same sex and gov… (or the added God would would still be invalid anyway)
tech…
A christian can able marriage without the gov papers for the fact that marriage is between male female and God and often done in front of the congregation as a support and encourager for the new couple through their lives. Since marriage is of God and not man.
Example:
Christians are to be living in the world but separate from the world. Why would a worldly piece of paper from the state have so much value? What? because of money and taxes?

Personally I honestly do not care gay people can legally marry. They want the legal benefits. They have that choice as humans. In technically it is not a marriage from God if it is not done on the spiritual level. Even the vows are different. As long as Revs are not being forced to marry people they do not want too, its fine. Everyone has choices.
I honestly do not see the big deal. Ceremony is different. Vows are different. They are not requiring Revs to do the marriages. People have the choice to sin if your reason is being gay is sinful. If children are going to brought into this, well for one:
gays do not abort
many adopt children that would probably never have a home otherwise
Sure there may not be a physical mother or father, but what is the difference with that compared to divorced couples with single moms or dads. Many do not even see the other parent. Gay couples… well at least they have two supportive people in their lives that love them. And no, gays do not push sexual orientation on children. Straight people seem to have that tendency.

Look I am not trying to slam anyone but what is wrong with accepting this? honestly?
It is a separate marriage from the christian world. It would be a marriage of the world or state. Like atheists getting married in the court house.But you do not see a huge ordeal about atheists legally getting married and raising children. the same “worries” apply in both cases. Only difference, a physical male or female is missing.
There is separation of church and state for a reason… because Christians are to live in the world but not of the world. That is why.

Gay marriage is a worldly counterfeit marriage. Personally I do not think we should be worrying about it being legal. We {s}ould be worrying about it being done in the Churches.

EDIT {}

 

[estesbob]

I am coming from an extremely liberal background, and I have heard all the arguments for gay marriage. At the moment, now, the only one that could potentially sway me is separation of church and state. In the secular world, the only thing that makes a marriage a marriage is the government, and the government can’t be affected by the Church. So if we’re going to oppose gay marriage under the state, there need to be convincing non-religious reasons and so far I haven’t found any.
Secular society has already stripped away the majority of what Catholics say is necessary in a marriage, including even the promise to stay together. I would think that by the time divorce is in the picture, it might as well not even be marriage. So how does adding homosexuality into the equation make it any worse? And how can I argue against such marriage?

It is always wrong to support evil.

 

[Joe_5859]

I am coming from an extremely liberal background, and I have heard all the arguments for gay marriage. At the moment, now, the only one that could potentially sway me is separation of church and state. In the secular world, the only thing that makes a marriage a marriage is the government, and the government can’t be affected by the Church. So if we’re going to oppose gay marriage under the state, there need to be convincing non-religious reasons and so far I haven’t found any.
Secular society has already stripped away the majority of what Catholics say is necessary in a marriage, including even the promise to stay together. I would think that by the time divorce is in the picture, it might as well not even be marriage. So how does adding homosexuality into the equation make it any worse? And how can I argue against such marriage?

The government does not have the authority to “make a marriage”. They only have the duty and obligation to recognize a valid marriage and protect it for the benefit of the common good.

Separation of Church and State really need not come into play here. The definition of marriage is not dependent on Christian theology or the Bible. It is written into nature.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

The government does not have the authority to “make a marriage”. They only have the duty and obligation to recognize a valid marriage and protect it for the benefit of the common good.

Separation of Church and State really need not come into play here. The definition of marriage is not dependent on Christian theology or the Bible. It is written into nature.

the marriage licence is not just an observation but a contract. separation of church and state, I only mentioned, because the world always lives differently than the Christian world. Marriage is not written into nature… but reproducing is. Animals do not commit to one partner and God… (few in fact keep one partner for a life time.) point being… take a look at this:

Marriage is a legal as well as a spiritual and personal relationship. When you state your marriage vows, you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that legal contract: 1) you; 2) your spouse; and 3) the state of Ohio. The state is a party to the contract because, under its laws, you have certain obligations and responsibilities to each other, to any children you may have, and to Ohio.ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawFactsPamphlets/Pages/lawfactspamphlet-35.aspx
Appellate Court of Illinois, NO. 5-97-0108:

“Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state.“

Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.

Continued…

“…When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State“
The fruits of the marriage (children) become owner ship of the state rather than the parents.certs.realitybloger.wordpress.com/2011/12/16/do-you-own-your-children/

Here is an example… i cannot remember the case but I remember the Details. Children in a school were required to take a test. The parents did not want them too because it was invasive. The school they had to because otherwise they were breaking the law and basically saying that they had jurisdiction over the children. The parents outraged said who have you that authority and they casually said your marriage licences and birth {edit certs}
When you register you are handing entitlement to the person you are registering with Regis=King

It then belongs to them… kids for example or even a marriage. It is a contract not an observance.

Point being… the gov is enforcing and believes they have a bigger role in marriage contracts rather than just observance and protecting (whatever they are protecting it from…)

So I bringing up the state contracts is another point for a worldly marriage verses in the Church. The Jews went to the priest for divorce…
People are saying the gov is redefining marriage by allowing gays… well they had already re-defined it long ago by replacing God with the State as the third party… LEGAL marriages would be counterfeit marriages. Important to get married under God in a Chruch with the CORRECT vows.
Not to say a christian should not get legally married they can, but it is not the real observance and should not be held more valuable than the cert or paper from the Rev. (or at least he should give you one separate than the legal gov one)