Is it wrong to not oppose secular gay marriage?

[glendab]

Hello Calilobo.

…You may find this unfortunate, but that is the reality of living in a democracy and a pluralistic society. Wake up–not everyone is Christian and not everyone believes that marriage is between a man and a woman…and the State doesn’t have the power to force their behavior. …Legalization of the gay lifestyle is required to ensure peace in a pluralistic society…, please concede that it’s possible that the Bible spoke against temple prostitution and pederasty, and NOT consensual homosexual relationships.

I picked four points in your statements. Forcing the MAJORITY to acquiesce to the minority is NOT DEMOCRACY, it is tyranny. In a democracy, the majority rules and does so by vote. Whatever the majority wants is what happens. You will never convince most of the people in America that gay marriage is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It only matters to gays and most gays care nothing for marriage at all. So, the minority of a minority is being allowed to directly effect how the majority lives. Sorry but this is anything but democratic.

Not every one is Christian but one doesn’t have to be Christian to oppose homosexuality. Homosexuality is out of the norm and most folks shun those who are by nature. That is human nature. If it were put to a vote tomorrow across this land, it wouldn’t pass a one voter, one vote measure. And that is how a true democracy is supposed to work. Those we elect are supposed to vote the way we would, not how they think their supposed to. So thinking that an anti-gay agenda is all from the Christians, think again.

The state not being able to force behavior on anyone is also not so. Where have you been living? Most states do. Here in America we’ve been living relatively free, but since most folks don’t care much for gays and only the most liberal or progressive persons feel a need to protect homosexuals in the public square even, it is the majority who will be forced by the State to accept a re-definition of their own marriages when the gay marriages are forced upon us. No force? Here about the baker who was sued by the gays for refusing to do business with them? Seems the gay couple had a wedding date and wanted that particular baker to do the cake. He refused and is being sued. And that is what he gets to pay for speaking up for what he believes. He lost his freedom to decide who he does business with. THAT IS VERY SCARRY! In effect, the gays with their lawyers and civil rights lobbyists will walk all over the country and force people to do as they wish or else face legal trouble. FAIR? Not even close? Democratic? Try again.

Your comment about legalization of homosexuality and their lifestyles bring about peace is actually a type of coercion that is familiar in Marxism. What peace? Let the Hitler Youth speak at your school. Want peace? Let the Red Shirts have the pick of the youth for their committees. Want peace? Let the Proletariat speak. Want peace? Free the workers! Want peace? Give the gays the weddings they long for. Is that what you want people to think? Don’t support the gays and you’ll loose peace?

Your last statement about the Bible not being opposed to homosexual marriages, well ever read the story of Sodom in the Bible? That’s really how God feels about homosexuals having the run of a town and the area for a while. God wrote the Bible and He said what they do is an abomination to Him and those among the Israelites who practiced such things were to be stoned to death. He said it, they did it. it is a powerful message and one that isn’t so easily undone by gay rhetoric and forcing an agenda on a people who trust their legislators to do as the people who elect them wish.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Calilobo.

.In the end, children who think it is fine will think it’s fine, and children who don’t think it’s fine will not.

Most children don’t think about this naturally. They need it introduced into their vocabularies. And this is done by older persons. There was a time when speaking about homosexuality around children or to children under a certain age was considered unthinkable, abuse, and even a crime depending on how vociferous the person was in describing homosexual behaviors. Our children’s innocence was to be protected for as long as possible and the ugliness of deviant sexual behaviors was that - ugly and not spoken of. If you think that all the sexual saturation of our children hostage in the public schools is a good thing and progress, you need to read more history to see it for what it is: systematic corruption of the morals of minors.

Glenda

 

[Rau]

It’s not so odd when you consider Jesus’ second commandment, and that there is nothing in the Bible saying that equality should NOT be promoted. In fact, the Bible can be analyzed to conclude that we are all children of God, and that we all have equal dignity. This is what has fueled the black civil rights movement.

Yes, we are all children of God, we all have equal dignity. But what is equality? Does it extend to a right to do anything that another can do? I asked you before - Are there no limits to what must be done in the cause of being “loving”? How curious that nowhere in Scripture, nowhere in 2000 years of Church tradition, has “gay marriage” found support.

The State affirms and acclaims same-sex relationships to protect the people in those relationships and to ensure that they get the property, inheritance, and child custody rights that straight people get.

No it doesn’t. It has been manipulated into thinking it is acclaiming “love”. In affirming and acclaiming Marriage, the State acknowledges a relationship of the kind that builds the society. A very particular and special, sexual, relationship. The legal rights you speak of are sensible adjuncts to Marriage, but are not essential to Marriage. Securing said rights is not the raison d’etre for Marriage. If there is good cause to makes these rights available in non-Marital circumstances, then well and good.

You have agreed multiple times that you support laws that help gays live together. My contention is, that because “civil union” does not do the job of protecting gay couples and their children well enough, and because equality is a value in the modern world that the Bible does not oppose (rather, it supports), it is therefore imperative to ensure equality for gays by extending them the right to marriage.

No Cali. The laws I’ve said I’d have **no objection to **have nothing to do with sexual relationships or homosexuality. Two elderly sisters, two life-long friends might like to utilise the arrangement I’ve suggested for asset sharing, mutual care, inheritance and so forth. There is no inherent assumption of a sexual relationship involved, for where such is between members of the same sex, the “sexuality” is of no interest to the State.

You are jumping to a conclusion by saying that by legalizing something, it establishes a norm of behavior. Cannabis is legal in some places, but it doesn’t establish a norm that smoking it is normal. Alcohol is legal in most places, but it doesn’t establish a norm that drinking it is normal. The same can be said for tobacco, prostitution, pornography, clothing-optional recreation, tattoos, piercings, motorcycle gangs, guns, dangerous sports, dangerous hobbies, everything.

Things which are legal, or not subject to heavy restrictions, carry the assent of the State. Before restrictions on cigarette sales, advertising, smoking in public places, it was the case that cigarette smoking was considered completely proper and normal.

Therefore, regarding extending marriage to gays, so what if it “normalizes” gay relationships?

I have no say over “gay relationships”. I have a say over whether the institution of Marriage is usurped.

Legalization of the gay lifestyle is required to ensure peace in a pluralistic society.

The “gay lifestyle” is not synonymous with “gay marriage”, and is already legal.

There is no such authority, but Jesus’ second commandment states that we are to love each other as we love ourselves. Is it loving to deny civil rights to others? Jesus has also given us the Great Commission. But instead we are alienating gays from the church!

Is it loving to encourage what we know to be wrong? When did gay marriage become a civil right? Are there no bounds to what must be accepted in the name of being “loving” towards those that want something? The Church does not seek to alienate anybody. Should the beliefs be adjusted so that everyone feels they are in full compliance? From your earlier thread Cali, it would be necessary to accept also contraception and abortion. Would that make the Church acceptable to everyone?

Most gays aren’t Christian, and the government is secular. Of course they don’t care about biblical authority. And neither is it the Christian’s place to impose the Bible on gays or the government. We know this because in the Bible, Jesus never did anything to overthrow Rome politically. He was more concerned about the spiritual battle of evangelism.

Right - imagine the headlines - Carpenter’s son and 12 friends march on Rome!! And yet they defied Rome constantly, till death.

It’s following Jesus’ second commandment and the Great Commission.

So even “silence” on the part of “gay marriage” objectors would be unacceptable to Jesus. He would expect us to institute gay marriage because that would be to conform to the second commandment.

In the end, children who think it is fine will think it’s fine, and children who don’t think it’s fine will not.

So, in the name of the second commandment, I will encourage the State to do one thing, but then teach my children why that is wrong.

Also, please concede that it’s possible that the Bible spoke against temple prostitution and pederasty, and NOT consensual homosexual relationships.

I’m not a bible scholar. But I didn’t know it spoke about pederasty or temple prostitution! I do remember the quote from Matthew though: ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’. I don’t recall any same sex variation of this. Do you?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So sit back and observe. Which church is running better to you? Which church is doing a better job of preaching, teaching, missions, evangelism, building community, and studying the Bible? It is clear that the Protestant Evangelical churches (with flexible tradition) are running circles around the Catholic Church (with obstinate tradition).

Why are Catholics switching to Protestantism and saying that they are experiencing Jesus for the first time?

Not to get too far off the subject, but Calilobo brings up an unpleasant truth.

A while ago I was stunned to learn that more Catholics are leaving our Church for protestant denominations than others are converting to Catholicism. I was involved in RCIA at the time and wanted to get to the bottom of this phenomena. I joined with a multi-diocesan study group to find answers. Talking to “ex-Catholics” we found pretty much the same reasons. All were in disagreement with the Church over one or more of the following:
Catholic Church’s stand on birth control.
Catholic Church’s position on abortion
Catholic Church’s position on women and the priesthood
Papal authority and the power of the magisterium

There were others but what it points to is nothing more than “Cafeteria Catholics”.

When we asked former protestants, who reconciled with the Church, why they became Catholic…everyone gave a one word answer…Salvation.

We don’t like to lose souls…but in my estimation this is a win for our Church. I’ll take quality over quantity every time.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I see this thread has been revived.

Let’s get back to the original question: Is it wrong to NOT oppose secular gay marriage?

I interpret the question as this: Just because you believe homosexuality is a sin, does it necessarily mean that you have to** actively oppose it politically**?

The answer is no. I believe the Bible clearly mandates Christians to oppose sexual sin, including homosexuality, in their personal lives. But the Bible is not clear that Christians must **politically oppose **the rights of gays to get marriage licenses equal to that of straights.

The Bible predated democracy; therefore it is an anachronism to say that God mandates us to politically oppose secular gay marriage rights. Such a teaching is yet another flawed effort by the Magisterium (not the Bible!) to repress and guilt people into compliance. Now, the cat is out of the bag. As education has increased, people see the evil that the Magisterium has spread.

People now can think for themselves, and know that just because you believe something is an evil, it doesn’t necessarily mean that you must oppose it politically. You can oppose it in your personal life, and that would be enough.

To oppose gay marriage rights politically, in fact, goes against the teachings of the Bible. It is unloving. It creates an underclass of citizens who are not treated equally, something that Jesus never did. It makes gays feel unwelcome in the Catholic Church and hurts Catholic efforts to evangelize the world, which is something that Jesus never intended. It politically imposes Catholic values on a secular society, which is something that Jesus never did while on earth in Roman times.

Let us also consider that the Bible arguably spoke against pederasty and temple prostitution, and not necessarily consensual gay relationships in the verses that are often quoted…

It is 2014 AD now, and in today’s era, humans are creating societies in which gays and straights can coexist equally. Does Jesus care about the way secular laws are being written? I don’t think so. Jesus cares more about whether the Church is preaching the Gospel and evangelizing the world.

There is nothing that says that Holy Tradition must remain obstinate and stagnant, with no opportunity to update it to make it relevant in 2014 AD. This is why the Protestants are flourishing today and Catholics are declining.

Stop saying that the Catholic Church is okay because it has a billion members. That’s not a real number; everyone on CAF agrees that most Catholics aren’t even attending Mass.

Read the actions of Jesus in the Bible and you will agree with me on what his priorities were.

Love your God with all your heart, strength, mind, and spirit. Love your neighbor as yourself.

(I also want to add that it is tragic that I can’t enter the Catholic Church because of my perfectly reasonable beliefs on this issue, which other Catholics agree with me on. I am agreeing more with Catholicism on other areas, agnostic purgatory has its drawbacks and it would be nice to have a belief system I can firmly be grounded in, but it is my opinions on social justice issues that make CAF members say that I am ineligible to enter the Church.)

It is wrong NOT to oppose secular gay “marriage”.

The Catholic Church did not invent marriage as an institution limited to heterosexual couples.

Neither did the state.

Marriage is a pre-political and natural phenomenon that arises out of the nature of human beings. The Catholic Church, along with virtually every religion and culture in the world recognizes and supports this natural institution because without it, no society will exist or flourish.

Neither the state nor the Church “created” marriage. Marriage is a natural outgrowth of human nature, capacities and needs. No one at the dawn of time sat down with a committee of sociologists and politicians to create marriage.

Marriage grows out of a natural affinity and complementarity of male and female – in other words, the ways in which one gender completes the other emotionally, spiritually and physically. The inclination, natural desire and capacity towards procreation and creation of a family can only be fulfilled through the union of a man and woman. Couples of the same sex lack the capacity to realize the goods of natural marriage for the simple reason that they lack the complementarity of male and female.

Unions which are essentially different from marriage (one man and one woman permanently committed to each other) will not become marriage simply by taking on an institutional guise.

Those involved in same-sex relationships are looking for social validity and legal approval. All of this is understandable, but that doesn’t make it possible.

A re-definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage is actually beyond the competence of the state, because marriage both precedes the state and is a necessary condition for the continuation of the state (because future generations arise from and are formed in marriage). When a state enacts a law saying that a same-sex relationship can constitute a marriage, it has the power to enforce that in a society’s external practices, but it is devoid any intrinsic moral legitimacy and is a contrary to any natural reality.

 

[Elizium23]

It is wrong NOT to oppose secular gay “marriage”.

Marriage is a pre-political and natural phenomenon that arises out of the nature of human beings. The Catholic Church, along with virtually every religion and culture in the world recognizes and supports this natural institution because without it, no society will exist or flourish.

Neither the state nor the Church “created” marriage. Marriage is a natural outgrowth of human nature, capacities and needs. No one at the dawn of time sat down with a committee of sociologists and politicians to create marriage.

Marriage grows out of a natural affinity and complementarity of male and female – in other words, the ways in which one gender completes the other emotionally, spiritually and physically. The inclination, natural desire and capacity towards procreation and creation of a family can only be fulfilled through the union of a man and woman. Couples of the same sex lack the capacity to realize the goods of natural marriage for the simple reason that they lack the complementarity of male and female.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

 

[Sky_River]

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.

Some people argue that legalizing same sex marriage isnt about redefining marriage, because men and women would still be allowed to marry; it would simply “expand” the definition of marriage to include gay couples. How would you respond to that arguement?

 

[Rau]

Some people argue that legalizing same sex marriage isnt about redefining marriage, because men and women would still be allowed to marry; it would simply “expand” the definition of marriage to include gay couples. How would you respond to that arguement?

Of course it amounts to a redefinition. For the fundamental underpinnings of what marriage is about would be changed. Marriage would be merely a means to celebrate and publicize personal commitment, and/or to access some legal arrangements. It’s society-building fundamentals would be rendered nothing special.

 

[Sky_River]

Of course it amounts to a redefinition. For the fundamental underpinnings of what marriage is about would be changed. Marriage would be merely a means to celebrate and publicize personal commitment, and/or to access some legal arrangements. It’s society-building fundamentals would be rendered nothing special.

Marriage was always used to celebrate and publicize personal commitment. Why do you think so many people take wedding photos?

 

[Rau]

Marriage was always used to celebrate and publicize personal commitment. Why do you think so many people take wedding photos?

If that is all it means to you, perhaps you should review your catechism and see if there might be more to it.

 

[estesbob]

Marriage was always used to celebrate and publicize personal commitment. Why do you think so many people take wedding photos?

Perhaps from a Secular standpoint-but not from a Catholic Standpoint:

1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

I. MARRIAGE IN GOD’S PLAN
[1602](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1602.htm’) Sacred Scripture begins with the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God and concludes with a vision of "the wedding-feast of the Lamb."85 Scripture speaks throughout of marriage and its “mystery,” its institution and the meaning God has given it, its origin and its end, its various realizations throughout the history of salvation, the difficulties arising from sin and its renewal “in the Lord” in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church.86
Marriage in the order of creation
[1603](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1603.htm’) "The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage."87 The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity,88 some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life."89
[1604](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1604.htm’) God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.90 Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator’s eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: "And God blessed them, and God said to them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.’"91 [1605](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1605.htm’) Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone."92 The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.93 "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."94 The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been “in the beginning”: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh."95

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Some people argue that legalizing same sex marriage isnt about redefining marriage, because men and women would still be allowed to marry; it would simply “expand” the definition of marriage to include gay couples. How would you respond to that arguement?

Just as there is a considerable difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality, there is a considerable difference between a marriage and a same-sex relationship.

How would you respond to the question: What good or benefit will the redefinition of marriage have on society as a whole?

 

[kozlosap]

Just as there is a considerable difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality, there is a considerable difference between a marriage and a same-sex relationship.

How would you respond to the question: What good or benefit will the redefinition of marriage have on society as a whole?

It appears that you haven’t had the opportunity to have gay friends who have been together many, many years. After 28 years together whether you are straight or gay, in most cases love for your partner has flourished and survived life’s hardships and dilemmas.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It appears that you haven’t had the opportunity to have gay friends who have been together many, many years. After 28 years together whether you are straight or gay, in most cases love for your partner has flourished and survived life’s hardships and dilemmas.

I only knew one person who was openly gay. We went to high school together. He died of AIDS. I had acquaintances and business associates who I suspect may be homosexual but I don’t ask and they don’t tell.

I agree that “in most cases love for your partner has flourished and survived life’s hardships and dilemmas.” However that, in itself, is no justification to refer to that relationship as a marriage. Unless it is between a man and a woman,

 

[estesbob]

It appears that you haven’t had the opportunity to have gay friends who have been together many, many years. After 28 years together whether you are straight or gay, in most cases love for your partner has flourished and survived life’s hardships and dilemmas.

So the longer one lives in sin the less sinful it is???

 

[ThinkingSapien]

How would you respond to the question: What good or benefit will the redefinition of marriage have on society as a whole?

For civil marriage wouldn’t the answer to that be a subset of the question of what benefits do contracts and rules for inheritance of property after death have on society as a whole?

 

[Rau]

For civil marriage wouldn’t the answer to that be a subset of the question of what benefits do contracts and rules for inheritance of property after death have on society as a whole?

Said contracts and rules are typical adjuncts to marriage, but not intrinsic to marriage itself. Non-marital relationships should have access to such arrangements.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Said contracts and rules are typical adjuncts to marriage, but not intrinsic to marriage itself.

Whether or not I agree with you is dependent on the type of marriage to which you are refering. Sacramental, Civil, Natural, …? Civil marriage is largely composed of the obligations, rights, and rules, statutes, and so on that a society has decided to include in their constructive definition of marriage over time and seems to evolve with that society.

Non-marital relationships should have access to such arrangements.

That was said to be the intention of the concept of the “civil union” but after such unions didn’t grant certain rights (ex: 5th amendment rights allowing you you to disclose information to a spouse without that spouse being prosecuted for refusing to disclose the information), only being recognized in certain states, and some other short comings I don’t think the LGBTQ community is going to be as accepting or trusting of the idea any more.

 

[Rau]

Whether or not I agree with you is dependent on the type of marriage to which you are refering. Sacramental, Civil, Natural, …? Civil marriage is largely composed of the obligations, rights, and rules, statutes, and so on that a society has decided to include in their constructive definition of marriage over time and seems to evolve with that society.
.

Sure glad my parents didn’t marry for property right and such!

The State can only give what it has to give in support of the aims of marriage; the latter predates the State.

 

[Godspells]

Whether or not I agree with you is dependent on the type of marriage to which you are refering. Sacramental, Civil, Natural, …? Civil marriage is largely composed of the obligations, rights, and rules, statutes, and so on that a society has decided to include in their constructive definition of marriage over time and seems to evolve with that society.

That was said to be the intention of the concept of the “civil union” but after such unions didn’t grant certain rights (ex: 5th amendment rights allowing you you to disclose information to a spouse without that spouse being prosecuted for refusing to disclose the information), only being recognized in certain states, and some other short comings I don’t think the LGBTQ community is going to be as accepting or trusting of the idea any more.

This is what I don’t understand, the Church gets to decide what is a sacramental marriage. What exactly is the objection of secular states calling something else marriage that is not? No one is advocating for forcing catholics to perform gay marriage ceremonies or recognize gay marriages, and I would certainly oppose that if they do.

What exactly is the aspect of gay unions that we are so objective to? At what point does a civil union become objectionable to the RCC?