Is it wrong to not oppose secular gay marriage?

[ThinkingSapien]

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

I think you may be conflating one’s motivations for marriage and their expectations for the rights that come with marriage. There’s quite a few miscongenation cases in history that could be used as examples to differentiate the two. To summarize them, two people marry with the intent of building a life together. An expected right is that the survivor should one of them die will have rights to keep the house in which they both live. After the state revoked the civil marriage because the two were of a combination of racial classifications that were not legally allowed it could (and did) take the property from the survivor. That doesn’t mean the two got married for the sake of getting a house out of the deal.

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

I don’t think states have been quite so limited in what they have been able to give and take away.It might be nice if this were the case though.

 

[estesbob]

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?

Homosexual marriage mocks Marriage. The Church has just as much right to oppose this mockery as homosexuals do to try and impose their warped definition on the rest of us.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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?

I have no problem with gay unions. I object to calling them “marriage”.

When a state enacts a law saying that a gay union can constitute a marriage, it has the power to enforce that in a society’s external practices, but lacks intrinsic moral legitimacy and is a contrary to any natural reality.

If the government says that an apple is now the same as an orange, and the law requires everyone to call apples “oranges,” the state would have the power to punish anyone who calls an apple an “apple” instead of an “orange,” but it would be a totalitarian abuse of raw power and would not change the biological reality of the nature of the fruit in question. So too with the definition of marriage.

The State has a duty to preserve and promote marriage as an institution that precedes the State, but the State does not have the authority to fundamentally redefine the nature of that institution.

Similarly, the State has the authority to enact the traffic laws to protect drivers. But it has no authority or power to change the laws of physics so that car accidents will be less destructive.

Rather the State assesses the pre-existing factors that influence safe driving – the age when most persons can handle the responsibility of driving, the effect of alcohol on drivers, the best way to construct roadways, maximum safe speeds – in order to create rules that best accord with these pre-existing realities. The same should be true of marriage.

My guess is that a civil union becomes objectionable the Catholic Church when it involves two Catholics of the same sex.

 

[Rau]

I have no problem with gay unions. I object to calling them “marriage”.

When a state enacts a law saying that a gay union can constitute a marriage, it has the power to enforce that in a society’s external practices, but lacks intrinsic moral legitimacy and is a contrary to any natural reality.

If the government says that an apple is now the same as an orange, and the law requires everyone to call apples “oranges,” the state would have the power to punish anyone who calls an apple an “apple” instead of an “orange,” but it would be a totalitarian abuse of raw power and would not change the biological reality of the nature of the fruit in question. So too with the definition of marriage.

The State has a duty to preserve and promote marriage as an institution that precedes the State, but the State does not have the authority to fundamentally redefine the nature of that institution.

Similarly, the State has the authority to enact the traffic laws to protect drivers. But it has no authority or power to change the laws of physics so that car accidents will be less destructive.

Rather the State assesses the pre-existing factors that influence safe driving – the age when most persons can handle the responsibility of driving, the effect of alcohol on drivers, the best way to construct roadways, maximum safe speeds – in order to create rules that best accord with these pre-existing realities. The same should be true of marriage.

My guess is that a civil union becomes objectionable the Catholic Church when it involves two Catholics of the same sex.

Well said Zoltan!

I note civil unions need not carry an implication that they are sexual unions, though marriages do. Of course, the reality need not concern anyone.

 

[on_the_hill]

I have no problem with gay unions. I object to calling them “marriage”.

When a state enacts a law saying that a gay union can constitute a marriage, it has the power to enforce that in a society’s external practices, but lacks intrinsic moral legitimacy and is a contrary to any natural reality.

If the government says that an apple is now the same as an orange, and the law requires everyone to call apples “oranges,” the state would have the power to punish anyone who calls an apple an “apple” instead of an “orange,” but it would be a totalitarian abuse of raw power and would not change the biological reality of the nature of the fruit in question. So too with the definition of marriage.

The State has a duty to preserve and promote marriage as an institution that precedes the State, but the State does not have the authority to fundamentally redefine the nature of that institution.

Similarly, the State has the authority to enact the traffic laws to protect drivers. But it has no authority or power to change the laws of physics so that car accidents will be less destructive.

Rather the State assesses the pre-existing factors that influence safe driving – the age when most persons can handle the responsibility of driving, the effect of alcohol on drivers, the best way to construct roadways, maximum safe speeds – in order to create rules that best accord with these pre-existing realities. The same should be true of marriage.

My guess is that a civil union becomes objectionable the Catholic Church when it involves two Catholics of the same sex.

I’m only reading the last page of this thread, but I’ll go with this one. Sounds good to me.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This thread seems to have morphed into “Is gay marriage bad?”, with people giving various reasons why it is bad. But there is a subtle difference between that question and the question posed by the title of this thread.

In an effort to bring this discussion back to the title question, I would like to point out that there is a difference between something being bad and needing to oppose that something. An example will make this clear.

It is bad to drink too much liquor. If my neighbor occasionally gets drunk and falls asleep (doesn’t hurt anyone else), it is not necessarily wrong to let him be. Of course it would be better if I did intervene when an opportunity presented itself, but failing to take advantage of that opportunity would just be a missed opportunity to do something good, not a definite wrong.

So a person might reasonably take the position that gay marriage, while a bad thing, need not be opposed to the limit of one’s strength. That is, if gay marriage passes in your state, despite your having voted against it, are you morally obligated to immediately join a campaign to reverse the decision and fill your lawn with lawn signs? Or is it sufficient to oppose gay marriage to the extent you did, and then to let matters be until the next easy opportunity to “oppose gay marriage”?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

This thread seems to have morphed into “Is gay marriage bad?”, with people giving various reasons why it is bad. But there is a subtle difference between that question and the question posed by the title of this thread.

In an effort to bring this discussion back to the title question, I would like to point out that there is a difference between something being bad and needing to oppose that something. An example will make this clear.

It is bad to drink too much liquor. If my neighbor occasionally gets drunk and falls asleep (doesn’t hurt anyone else), it is not necessarily wrong to let him be. Of course it would be better if I did intervene when an opportunity presented itself, but failing to take advantage of that opportunity would just be a missed opportunity to do something good, not a definite wrong.

So a person might reasonably take the position that gay marriage, while a bad thing, need not be opposed to the limit of one’s strength. That is, if gay marriage passes in your state, despite your having voted against it, are you morally obligated to immediately join a campaign to reverse the decision and fill your lawn with lawn signs? Or is it sufficient to oppose gay marriage to the extent you did, and then to let matters be until the next easy opportunity to “oppose gay marriage”?

Excellent points Leaf…or should I say Excellent challenge…?

There are those of us who are working hard to see this go up to the Supreme Court. (where it will end up). We expect the court to rule that this is a matter left up to the States. (As it should be). At his decision, California’s definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman would be upheld. Because that is what the majority of Californians voted for.

 

[glendab]

Hello Leaf.

This thread seems to have morphed into “Is gay marriage bad?”, with people giving various reasons why it is bad. But there is a subtle difference between that question and the question posed by the title of this thread.

In an effort to bring this discussion back to the title question, I would like to point out that there is a difference between something being bad and needing to oppose that something. An example will make this clear.

It is bad to drink too much liquor. If my neighbor occasionally gets drunk and falls asleep (doesn’t hurt anyone else), it is not necessarily wrong to let him be. Of course it would be better if I did intervene when an opportunity presented itself, but failing to take advantage of that opportunity would just be a missed opportunity to do something good, not a definite wrong.

So a person might reasonably take the position that gay marriage, while a bad thing, need not be opposed to the limit of one’s strength. That is, if gay marriage passes in your state, despite your having voted against it, are you morally obligated to immediately join a campaign to reverse the decision and fill your lawn with lawn signs? Or is it sufficient to oppose gay marriage to the extent you did, and then to let matters be until the next easy opportunity to “oppose gay marriage”?

Yes, I agree with Zoltan. This is a very good post. However, I think if you compared the morals of American society as a whole and the appearances of a Judeo-Christian Culture we once had to the America of today, you’d see how far down the slippery slope we have slid as a moral society on the whole. We aren’t yet totally unrecognizable, but we aren’t who we were in 1950. And I for one do not think much of this is progress. Not by a long shot. If you told most people in the 50’s that abortion would be legalized, available in most cities in America and used to kill thousands of children each month, they’d look at you like you were a Communist or some other such horrid anti-American person! Honestly it would’ve been that shocking to most persons. And today, we have further down that same slippery slope to slide with the gay marriage agendas. Your post seems appropriate and for some it simply provides the words they need in their minds to simply do the same nothing they do about abortion. Soothing the consciences of many is a way to become very popular.

Glenda

 

[Mulligan2]

Homosexual marriage mocks Marriage. The Church has just as much right to oppose this mockery as homosexuals do to try and impose their warped definition on the rest of us.

My view of my sacramental marriage is not affected in any way by the secular gay marriage of two loving individuals.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

My view of my sacramental marriage is not affected in any way by the secular gay marriage of two loving individuals.

Firstly, how can you consider LOVE to include a sexual practice that causes pain, bleeding and spreads disease???

Anyone, Catholic, Christian, or whatever, with any caring whatsoever would NOT want the state supporting and encouraging such behavior by legitimizing it as Marriage.

 

[Shawshank94]

Firstly, how can you consider LOVE to include a sexual practice that causes pain, bleeding and spreads disease???

Anyone, Catholic, Christian, or whatever, with any caring whatsoever would NOT want the state supporting and encouraging such behavior by legitimizing it as Marriage.

How very offensive of you to judge anyone else’s Love. And you do realize that many heterosexual couples enjoy those same practices. To say they “cause pain, bleeding and spread disease” is quite ignorant on your part. And I do quite think the opposite in that any caring, rational, intelligent person WOULD want the state to support such behavior and be for marriage equality, in my thoughts.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

How very offensive of you to judge anyone else’s Love.

Since you have no problem judging me as offensive…I shall continue to judge love as I see fit.

And you do realize that many heterosexual couples enjoy those same practices.

Oh…I see.** Two wrongs make a right?** Well lets dump the whole concept of morality

To say they “cause pain, bleeding and spread disease” is quite ignorant on your part. And I do quite think the opposite in that any caring, rational, intelligent person WOULD want the state to support such behavior and be for marriage equality, in my thoughts.

Ignorant?

Ignorance is the fact that STDs are now at epidemic levels in gay communities all over this country and the “activists” are only interested in redefining marriage.

Caring, rational, intelligent people would want to save lives.

 

[estesbob]

How very offensive of you to judge anyone else’s Love. And you do realize that many heterosexual couples enjoy those same practices. To say they “cause pain, bleeding and spread disease” is quite ignorant on your part. And I do quite think the opposite in that any caring, rational, intelligent person WOULD want the state to support such behavior and be for marriage equality, in my thoughts.

Homosexual behavior is spiritually, physically, and emotionally destructive behavior .

Love never expresses itself through sin