Is it wrong to not oppose secular gay marriage?

[kozlosap]

If homosexuality were remotely a civil rights issue, the Catholic Church would be defending it.

However, there is no constitutional basis to assert that gender identity is a civil right.

It appears that the Courts do not agree with you, especially concerning the Equal Protection Clause.

 

[Jim_Baur]

Love’s symbol in the Bible is fire–fire for light–light to good vision.

We must teach with a loving example.

We are to bring the light of love to the our live and to the rest of humanity.

We must do that lovingly.

Matrimony is a great loving and beautiful light.

It will, especially with our great examples ,give light to those that are blind or of poor vision.

Remember, Matrimony is the new idea. The old sexual bestiality, prostitution (male and female) and incest are the old way. We have the enlightened way.

It must be done with love!

Then they will come to the Kingdom of God. They will be able to see the Kingdom and come to it.

The secular city will have what it votes to have.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It appears that the Courts do not agree with you, especially concerning the Equal Protection Clause.

True, some courts have been swayed by the gay activist movement and their political strategy. Their problem is that it won’t hold up.

The basis on which a “group” can claim constitutional protection is minority status as a “suspect class.”

The Supreme Court recognizes minority status only for those groups which:

1. have suffered a history of discrimination,
2. are powerless to help themselves and
3. are defined by immutable characteristics.

It is the burden of the gay community to prove to the court that their chosen lifestyle and behavior is immutable. They can’t.

There exists no truly objective means of determining whether a person is innately homosexual. One cannot take a blood test or DNA sample to prove that he or she is “gay.” We must depend entirely upon a person’s claim that his or her homosexuality is innate. The taint of political self-interest alone makes such evidence wholly untrustworthy.

To claim constitutional protection gay activists try to create a context in which homosexuality and heterosexuality hold equal status. If homosexuals and heterosexuals are assumed to be equal, then it is unfair to deny homosexuals all of the benefits that heterosexuals enjoy.

They ARE NOT equal.

Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is immutable. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of compatible genders is to suppress a fundamental truth about what it means to be human.

All human beings, with the exception of people with genital deformities, are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. We are either male or female. We have sexual feelings only because of chemical and other processes that are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, a male sexual orientation toward a female (or vise versa) is self-evidently normal and natural.

By contrast, a same sex orientation is self-evidently abnormal and unnatural.

For homosexuality to be equivalent to heterosexuality, it would need its own homosexual physiology.

 

[CaliLobo]

This is not a civil rights issue. Engaging in sodomy creates no rights.

In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court invalidated laws against homosexual sodomy. The Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So yes, there is a civil right to engage in sodomy, or gay sex.
Zoltan Cobalt:

The Church’s teaching on homosexuality and marriage is Catholic because it is true, not true because it is Catholic.

The conclusion that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status is because it is based on the truth, not just on Catholic teaching. Yet, saying that makes this conclusion all the more controversial.

If it were based simply on Catholic teaching, opponents could say: “You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others.” Instead, saying that truth is the reason that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status is offensive to those who deny the existence of truth, who prefer to live in a world dominated by a “dictatorship of relativism” and that is the gravest problem of our time.

If you acknowledge that truth exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not I or the Catholic Church correctly understands this matter. But if you deny that there is such a thing as truth, that is, the truth, not just my truth and your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.

It is the truth that it is normal for people to experience same-sex attraction. It is the truth that 5% of people identify as gay. It is the truth that there is no “cure” for this, because it was never a disease to begin with, because it is a normal condition.

It is the truth that sexuality is a continuum between gay and straight. It is the truth that straight people have had gay experiences. It is the truth that gays have existed all throughout history, and that in ancient times, people had partners of the same and the opposite sex and there was no moral opposition against it. It is the truth that gay sex predated Catholicism.

Immorality was not the reason for the fall of Rome. The rising Ottoman Empire was.

Homosexuality will not go away, and trying to use legal means to eliminate it because of the “truth” of Catholic teaching will not work.

runningdude:

The Church must always argue from a position of strength. Allowing herself to be portrayed as weak and “oppressed” in the freest country in history, when she has the absolute backing of the Almighty Lord is cowardly and a dereliction of duty.

Why is it cowardly? Why is it a dereliction of duty? The Church is weak and oppressed in other nations. Isn’t it weak and oppressed in the USA?

The US has never been a Catholic nation. It has arguably been a Protestant nation, and that is changing. The Church, by arguing from a position of an oppressed minority, will be arguing from a position of truth. It can better protect its people and gain results in the courts.

It is possible to be Catholic and support the government getting out of marriage, right? If so, I am 1/3 of the way there (abortion and contraception still needing to be reconciled for me).

 

[CaliLobo]

True, some courts have been swayed by the gay activist movement and their political strategy. Their problem is that it won’t hold up.

The basis on which a “group” can claim constitutional protection is minority status as a “suspect class.”

The Supreme Court recognizes minority status only for those groups which:

1. have suffered a history of discrimination,
2. are powerless to help themselves and
3. are defined by immutable characteristics.

It is the burden of the gay community to prove to the court that their chosen lifestyle and behavior is immutable. They can’t.

There exists no truly objective means of determining whether a person is innately homosexual. One cannot take a blood test or DNA sample to prove that he or she is “gay.” We must depend entirely upon a person’s claim that his or her homosexuality is innate. The taint of political self-interest alone makes such evidence wholly untrustworthy.

To claim constitutional protection gay activists try to create a context in which homosexuality and heterosexuality hold equal status. If homosexuals and heterosexuals are assumed to be equal, then it is unfair to deny homosexuals all of the benefits that heterosexuals enjoy.

They ARE NOT equal.

Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is immutable. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of compatible genders is to suppress a fundamental truth about what it means to be human.

All human beings, with the exception of people with genital deformities, are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. We are either male or female. We have sexual feelings only because of chemical and other processes that are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, a male sexual orientation toward a female (or vise versa) is self-evidently normal and natural.

By contrast, a same sex orientation is self-evidently abnormal and unnatural.

For homosexuality to be equivalent to heterosexuality, it would need its own homosexual physiology.

There is a logical flaw in your argument. Homosexuals cannot get themselves to be heterosexual, in the same way that a heterosexual cannot get himself to be homosexual.

Therefore, either both are immutable, or both are not immutable. One cannot arbitrarily be immutable and one not.

Why is a reproductive system heterosexual by nature? Because of the body parts involved? What is abnormal and unnatural? Body parts alone do not define what is normal sexually. May I remind you that homosexual behavior is found in 300 other species.

 

[Rau]

…Why is a reproductive system heterosexual by nature? Because of the body parts involved? What is abnormal and unnatural? Body parts alone do not define what is normal sexually. May I remind you that homosexual behavior is found in 300 other species.

The reproductive “process” in the human species certainly requires both the sexes Cali; this surely, is not in debate?

May I remind you too that variations (like hair colour) and birth defects (like mental defects and physical deformities) do occur in all complex species (including humans), without the artificial influence. In that sense, they are ALL natural. But the fact that they may arise naturally (or, at least, not by choice), says nothing about whether they are neutral, beneficial, or harmful. However, we are generally able to recognise those variations that are in accordance with our “blueprint”, and those which are not. Hair colour variations typically fit the blueprints for humans - we know that. A human with a missing arm does not - the blueprint calls for 2 arms. A human male who is born sterile or impotent does not fit the blueprint - the blueprint provides for (does not oblige) each individual to engage, with a person of the opposite sex, in acts apt for reproduction.

I have no difficulty in accepting a homosexual person’s assertion that his inclinations are immutable. I don’t understand why some people feel obliged to fight that possibility. Further, I have no need to see the State declare that sex acts that persons may engage in are illegal, anymore than I need have the State declare masturbation illegal.

And further still, I have no difficulty with the State acceding to a request from citizens to establish a legal framework for those not eligible to marry, but who wish to partner with another person (typically same sex) for the purposes of sharing assets, mutual care and support, etc.

I just point out that the State would be cavalier to deem and label that arrangement Marriage, even if some of the legal provisions are quite similar. Marriage pre-dated the formation of all of our States.

At the end of the day, the State will do what the voting citizens want.

 

[Rau]

That is a fair position.

It is also a fair position to say that it would potentially be moral to have supported civil unions when it became a certainty in the late-1990s that SSM would be legalized eventually if there was no similar institution nationwide. But growing up in the late-90s/early-00’s, it always amazed me at the blinders conservatives put on. “ALL THE POLLS ARE WRONG,” etc. Worked great with SSM and worked great with the 2012 election .

I believe “civil unions”, in that they are not in every respect identical to marriage (the fact the name is different for starters) renders them unacceptable to (many of) those demanding SSM.

My observation of some prominent proponents of SSM is that they deem the union of a gay couple to be no different than a married couple. They view gay unions as a step towards forming a family, with subsequent (and ‘natural’) steps including IVF or surrogacy to “have a baby”, and so forth.

Whether embracing civil unions in the 1990s would have nullified the SSM movement is a moot point.

As to the morality of Civil Unions - as a means to facilitate shared assets (including a home), mutual care, etc. etc., - it would not be immoral, by any measure I understand, to institute such a framework. Arguably, the legal requirements are not unreasonable. What individuals may do behind closed doors is another question, but the Civil Union statute need make no assumptions whatsoever about that subject.

 

[SMGS127]

I believe “civil unions”, in that they are not in every respect identical to marriage (the fact the name is different for starters) renders them unacceptable to (many of) those demanding SSM.

My observation of some prominent proponents of SSM is that they deem the union of a gay couple to be no different than a married couple. They view gay unions as a step towards forming a family, with subsequent (and ‘natural’) steps including IVF or surrogacy to “have a baby”, and so forth.

Whether embracing civil unions in the 1990s would have nullified the SSM movement is a moot point.

As to the morality of Civil Unions - as a means to facilitate shared assets (including a home), mutual care, etc. etc., - it would not be immoral, by any measure I understand, to institute such a framework. Arguably, the legal requirements are not unreasonable. What individuals may do behind closed doors is another question, but the Civil Union statute need make no assumptions whatsoever about that subject.

Personally I believe there should be no legal marriage period. Everyone should have legal civil unions, and then other issues, such as child tax breaks, should be separate. Then gays/lesbians don’t enter into a marital-like relationship, the name isn’t different, satisfying Constitutional issues, and expectant women can still get the financial and maternal help.

 

[Rau]

Personally I believe there should be no legal marriage period. Everyone should have legal civil unions, and then other issues, such as child tax breaks, should be separate. Then gays/lesbians don’t enter into a marital-like relationship, the name isn’t different, satisfying Constitutional issues, and expectant women can still get the financial and maternal help.

That seems a reasonable framework, though difficult to retrofit.

In some jurisdictions, matters such as family assistance/child tax breaks etc are entirely separate and only arise when there actually are children!

 

[Rau]

Personally I believe there should be no legal marriage period. Everyone should have legal civil unions, and then other issues, such as child tax breaks, should be separate. Then gays/lesbians don’t enter into a marital-like relationship, the name isn’t different, satisfying Constitutional issues, and expectant women can still get the financial and maternal help.

Though I find it bizarre that anyone would struggle to see the special significance that Marriages (should) have for the State. If the Constitution has a problem with that, well

 

[CaliLobo]

So do we agree that today’s Catholic Church is okay with getting the government out of marriage, and instead only having civil unions, leaving marriage as the province of other entities such as churches?

 

[glendab]

Hello Cali.

So do we agree that today’s Catholic Church is okay with getting the government out of marriage, and instead only having civil unions, leaving marriage as the province of other entities such as churches?

The Catholic Church has never said it wants the government out of the marriage business. Where ever did you find such an idea?

Glenda

 

[CaliLobo]

The Catholic Church has never said it wants the government out of the marriage business. Where ever did you find such an idea?

Because of the handful of posts directly above the one you quoted, and because the Vatican has never said anything *against *civil unions. Didn’t Pope Francis recently say that he is open to civil unions??

 

[Vico]

Because of the handful of posts directly above the one you quoted, and because the Vatican has never said anything *against *civil unions. Didn’t Pope Francis recently say that he is open to civil unions??

The Church opposes legislation. From the prefect of the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, **William Cardinal Levada **(now Prefect Emeritus):**Homosexual unions

**Sr. Farley writes: “Legislation for nondiscrimination against homosexuals, but also for domestic partnerships, civil unions, and gay marriage, can also be important in transforming the hatred, rejection, and stigmatization of gays and lesbians that is still being reinforced by teachings of ‘unnatural’ sex, disordered desire, and dangerous love. … Presently one of the most urgent issues before the U.S. public is marriage for same-sex partners – that is, the granting of social recognition and legal standing to unions between lesbians and gays comparable to unions between heterosexuals” (p. 293).

This position is opposed to the teaching of the Magisterium: “The Church teaches that the respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself”. “The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it”. [4][5]vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20120330_nota-farley_en.html

Also see Post #2 forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12127322&postcount=2

 

[glendab]

Hello Cali.

Because of the handful of posts directly above the one you quoted, and because the Vatican has never said anything *against *civil unions. Didn’t Pope Francis recently say that he is open to civil unions??

Here’s what I know about civil unions and the Church. I was in one. We were Common Law wed. My husband died ten years before I became a Catholic. He was an atheist at the time of his death. I considered myself agnostic in that I believed there was a god, I just didn’t know who, so I couldn’t consider myself atheist like my hubby. I was widowed from that marriage before Baptism, yet when I came into the Church my marriage was honored as a marriage, not a Sacrament but I’m still considered a widow and am free to marry if I wish. I wish not and have remained a widow since Consecration. My marriage was one such civil union and the Church honors them. The Church will never say what you propose, so give it up.

Glenda

 

[estesbob]

Because of the handful of posts directly above the one you quoted, and because the Vatican has never said anything *against *civil unions. Didn’t Pope Francis recently say that he is open to civil unions??

No.The Church opposses same sex civil unions

 

[Rau]

No.The Church opposses same sex civil unions

The opposition rests on the proposition that they signify a sexual relationship. Were there no such implication, then they are merely a contractual arrangement about asset sharing, mutual care, etc.

 

[Thinking10]

Because of the handful of posts directly above the one you quoted, and because the Vatican has never said anything *against *civil unions. Didn’t Pope Francis recently say that he is open to civil unions??

Cali, there is a difference between outlawing homosexual marriages, and a society where homosexual relationships are not singled out as a legally recognized relationship, such as a marriage or civil union. I agree that we should not deny homosexuals the ability to have relationships if that is what they feel they need. However, when we are talking about granting these relationships official social status similar or equivalent to marriage, we need to ask what place homosexuality has in society, and for what reason our society should recognize homosexual relationships. We are talking about taking a private matter, a relationship between people, and making it a public matter.

Why should homosexuality become a concern of the public? Legally recognizing homosexual relationships isn’t about grant or denying anything to homosexuals. It is about what homosexuality can do for society. Granting a relationship legal status isn’t a gift to that relationship as much as it is an investment. With heterosexual marriage, it is understood that benefits given to those marriages will yield a return on the investment in the form of new children. What return on investment can homosexuality provide?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It is the truth that it is normal for people to experience same-sex attraction.

That is YOUR TRUTH. THE TRUTH is, if it were normal there would be no need for opposite sexes

It is the truth that 5% of people identify as gay.

I agree with that…there could be 5% who “identify” as gay…but they can’t prove it.

It is the truth that there is no “cure” for this, because it was never a disease to begin with, because it is a normal condition.

Oh there** is a cure **all right. But the gay community does not want it to be known.
If science were to identify a biological cause of homosexuality, that day would begin the “race for the cure.” (And a great many purportedly happy homosexual men and women would secretly join that race.)

Actually tens of thousands of men and women who once lived as homosexuals took the “CURE”. These ex-“gays” have renounced their former lifestyles and many have become heterosexual in self-identification and desire, while others have stopped at the point of comfort with their own gender and freedom from same-sex desires.

It is the truth that sexuality is a continuum between gay and straight.

That again is “YOUR TRUTH” unless you can prove it.

It is the truth that straight people have had gay experiences.

That’s true, but what’s the point? There is a lot of perversion out there. Some gays engage in pedophilia. Does that make them normal?

It is the truth that gays have existed all throughout history, and that in ancient times, people had partners of the same and the opposite sex and there was no moral opposition against it. It is the truth that gay sex predated Catholicism.

Yes, all true, but historical existence does not make homosexuality a normal condition.

Immorality was not the reason for the fall of Rome. The rising Ottoman Empire was.

There were a lot of reasons for the fall of Rome. The Ottoman Empire and barbarian invasions were part of the fall. Perhaps if Rome had maintained a higher moral standard they would have been able to hold off the barbarians and the Ottoman Turks

Homosexuality will not go away, and trying to use legal means to eliminate it because of the “truth” of Catholic teaching will not work.

Catholic teaching is true because it is TRUTH…not because it is Catholic.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

There is a logical flaw in your argument. Homosexuals cannot get themselves to be heterosexual, in the same way that a heterosexual cannot get himself to be homosexual.

Therefore, either both are immutable, or both are not immutable. One cannot arbitrarily be immutable and one not.

That’s not a flaw…

Homosexuals ARE heterosexual in design. A homosexual can be a heterosexual any time he wants. The difference in people, if you haven’t noticed, is gender. Men and women are different.

The logical conclusion would be: Men cannot get themselves to be women, in the same way that a woman cannot get herself to be man. That is immutable.

Why is a reproductive system heterosexual by nature?

That is a deep and ponderous question.

I will try to take a stab at it…

If a reproductive system (Human) were not heterosexual (physiologically speaking) it would not reproduce. Therefore it would not be a reproductive system. This is the reason why Mother Nature is not happy with gays and homosexuality. She designed males and females to reproduce and any un-natural sexual deviation really annoys her.

May I remind you that homosexual behavior is found in 300 other species.

You don’t say…maybe that is the reason Mother Nature is so grumpy these days. Ha! so that’s why she gave us Global Warming…

Come on, CaliLobo, just because 300 species of animals engage in mistaken sexual identity…that is no reason to justify disordered human sexual relations and call them normal.

I cannot understand why any self respecting homosexual or gay sympathizer would want to use the abnormal behavior of the lower animals as a justification of their lifestyle.

So what, if you saw two male Yaks mounting each other on the Nature Channel…that does not make it right.