Is it wrong to not oppose secular gay marriage?

[Rau]

I am going to repeat myself again. I am in line with Church teaching. In fact, while many dissenting Catholics are waiting to post a 99 thesis on their parish doors, I am holding back posting mine about what the Church should do to be more orthodox Just because I am not defacing a “Support Marriage Equality” sign on a person’s yard doesn’t mean I support “gay marriage.”

Many laws are against Catholic teaching. Abortion is legal in the U.S., so is contraception, divorce, cohabitation, multiple remarriages and divorces, having children out of wedlock, etc. All of those things have affected the family significantly more, and for longer than the legalization of secular “gay marriage.” Yet, what has been going on with those?

(waiting)

The Church has allowed many laws to pass which violate its teachings, and I don’t hear too many complaints about them anymore. I do not understand why there is such a borderline crazy-obsessive push to ensure Catholic teaching affects public policy in this matter, when there is a laundry list of other issues greatly hurting the Christian Church.

The Church neither allows laws nor disallows them. It has no such capacity or authority.

You just “think” gay “marriage” has had special treatment because it is the issue du Jour, and has been in debate for quite some time in the community.

Oh, and the notion of “secular marriage” is non-existent. When a man and a woman marry, they are “married”.

 

[CaliLobo]

I am going to repeat myself again. I am in line with Church teaching. In fact, while many dissenting Catholics are waiting to post a 99 thesis on their parish doors, I am holding back posting mine about what the Church should do to be more orthodox Just because I am not defacing a “Support Marriage Equality” sign on a person’s yard doesn’t mean I support “gay marriage.”

Many laws are against Catholic teaching. Abortion is legal in the U.S., so is contraception, divorce, cohabitation, multiple remarriages and divorces, having children out of wedlock, etc. All of those things have affected the family significantly more, and for longer than the legalization of secular “gay marriage.” Yet, what has been going on with those?

(waiting)

The Church has allowed many laws to pass which violate its teachings, and I don’t hear too many complaints about them anymore. I do not understand why there is such a borderline crazy-obsessive push to ensure Catholic teaching affects public policy in this matter, when there is a laundry list of other issues greatly hurting the Christian Church.

 

[spunjalebi]

The Church neither allows laws nor disallows them. It has no such capacity or authority.

You just “think” gay “marriage” has had special treatment because it is the issue du Jour, and has been in debate for quite some time in the community.

Oh, and the notion of “secular marriage” is non-existent. When a man and a woman marry, they are “married”.

Oh…is that why we have something called a sacrament? Can atheists have a sacrament if they were married by a JoP?

 

[Rau]

Oh…is that why we have something called a sacrament? Can atheists have a sacrament if they were married by a JoP?

I don’t understand the question.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I am going to repeat myself again. I am in line with Church teaching. In fact, while many dissenting Catholics are waiting to post a 99 thesis on their parish doors, I am holding back posting mine about what the Church should do to be more orthodox Just because I am not defacing a “Support Marriage Equality” sign on a person’s yard doesn’t mean I support “gay marriage.”

That’s wonderful! You do not support gay “marriage”. As well it should be.

Many laws are against Catholic teaching. Abortion is legal in the U.S., so is contraception, divorce, cohabitation, multiple remarriages and divorces, having children out of wedlock, etc. All of those things have affected the family significantly more, and for longer than the legalization of secular “gay marriage.” Yet, what has been going on with those?

(waiting)

Sorry to keep you waiting…

These “laws” that you mention do not apply to Catholics. Their negative affect has been on those who accept those laws as “permission”.
Abortion is legal in the U.S. but Catholics condemn it. What is the government to do…FORCE Catholics to have abortions?
Same with contraception, divorce, cohabitation and multiple remarriages.
If gay unions were defined as marriage by the Supreme Court as law of the land. The Catholic Church would not accept them. Simple as that.

The Church has allowed many laws to pass which violate its teachings, and I don’t hear too many complaints about them anymore. I do not understand why there is such a borderline crazy-obsessive push to ensure Catholic teaching affects public policy in this matter, when there is a laundry list of other issues greatly hurting the Christian Church.

The Catholic Church does not have the power to allow laws to pass or not.
If the Church was demanding that the state accept Cannon Law…that would be wrong.
It is not Catholic teaching that affects public policy in this matter…it is simply basic truth.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

[spunjalebi]

That’s wonderful! You do not support gay “marriage”. As well it should be.

Sorry to keep you waiting…

These “laws” that you mention do not apply to Catholics. Their negative affect has been on those who accept those laws as “permission”.
Abortion is legal in the U.S. but Catholics condemn it. What is the government to do…FORCE Catholics to have abortions?
Same with contraception, divorce, cohabitation and multiple remarriages.
If gay unions were defined as marriage by the Supreme Court as law of the land. **The Catholic Church would not accept them. Simple as that. **

The Catholic Church does not have the power to allow laws to pass or not.
If the Church was demanding that the state accept Cannon Law…that would be wrong.
It is not Catholic teaching that affects public policy in this matter…it is simply basic truth.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.

That’s also my belief. If it’s just that simple, why are we fighting amongst ourselves about it? We already know what marriage is. In reality, there have been two “types” of marriages ever since the Reformation (since that is of course, what Luther wanted). When Luther decided marriage was a concern of the State, there became civil marriage and sacramental or religious marriage.

Many other faiths do not care what the government has to say about their marriages. Other faiths believe marriage is unbreakable and their adherents would not concern themselves with whether or not the government “recognizes” them. If we know government recognition is irrelevant, why are Catholics pushing this so much? If we already know what is truth, and know the government cannot force us to believe otherwise, why are we fighting?

 

[shelby_sun]

That’s also my belief. If it’s just that simple, why are we fighting amongst ourselves about it? We already know what marriage is. In reality, there have been two “types” of marriages ever since the Reformation (since that is of course, what Luther wanted). When Luther decided marriage was a concern of the State, there became civil marriage and sacramental or religious marriage.

Many other faiths do not care what the government has to say about their marriages. Other faiths believe marriage is unbreakable and their adherents would not concern themselves with whether or not the government “recognizes” them. If we know government recognition is irrelevant, why are Catholics pushing this so much? If we already know what is truth, and know the government cannot force us to believe otherwise, why are we fighting?

I agree. The “union” of two people outside the church is no different if it is a man and a women coming into that “union” or two same sex people. The church does not recognize either as a marriage. Those off you arguing same sex unions, have you also spent a great deal of time fighting or arguing against heterosexual unions outside the church? If not why?

 

[Rau]

I agree. The “union” of two people outside the church is no different if it is a man and a women coming into that “union” or two same sex people. The church does not recognize either as a marriage. Those off you arguing same sex unions, have you also spent a great deal of time fighting or arguing against heterosexual unions outside the church? If not why?

The Church does not recognize baptised Catholics marrying outside the church as married. For other cases, a man and woman marrying in a civil ceremony are recognized as “married”.

Note that in all cases, the legal rights and obligations conferred by the State do apply.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That’s also my belief. If it’s just that simple, why are we fighting amongst ourselves about it? We already know what marriage is. In reality, there have been two “types” of marriages ever since the Reformation (since that is of course, what Luther wanted). When Luther decided marriage was a concern of the State, there became civil marriage and sacramental or religious marriage.

Many other faiths do not care what the government has to say about their marriages. Other faiths believe marriage is unbreakable and their adherents would not concern themselves with whether or not the government “recognizes” them. If we know government recognition is irrelevant, why are Catholics pushing this so much? If we already know what is truth, and know the government cannot force us to believe otherwise, why are we fighting?

I don’t consider this to be “fighting”. We are discussing…exchanging ideas and opinions.

When I join a thread with a topic of homosexuality and/or same-sex unions I remain on the secular side because there are many Catholics on CAF who are better at defending the Church’s position than I.

Also, and more importantly, I do not need the teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, or any religion, to convince me that homosexuality is not normal and a same-sex “marriage” is impossible. Frankly I think the Church is being very kind when it uses the word “disordered”. My choice is “perversion”.

Therefore, in discussing the question of this thread…** Is it wrong to not oppose secular gay marriage?**…from a secular, non religious position…YES. It is certainly WRONG to NOT oppose secular gay “marriage”.

Why?

Because it is simply a very stupid idea. There is not one single societal benefit in redefining marriage to include a same-sex union.

I have tried. with every argument I have posted on this and other threads. to avoid religious objections and focus on a logical and reasonable secular position.

I know I am not in the majority with this position, but I am amazed by the many non-religious secularists who agree with me.

So, spunjalebi, old friend. While we may agree about this on the Religious side, I strongly disagree on the secular side.

Marriage is between a man and a woman Period!

 

[djames99]

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?

Yes.

“and forgive me… and what I have failed to do…”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

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?

Marriage was not invented by the government or the Catholic Church. It has been going on long before either existed.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Since the government/state depends on marriage (procreation) to maintain the state…government has no authority to redefine marriage to include a same sex union.

 

[SMGS127]

Marriage was not invented by the government or the Catholic Church. It has been going on long before either existed.

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Since the government/state depends on marriage (procreation) to maintain the state…government has no authority to redefine marriage to include a same sex union.

Right, but the government doesn’t “define” anything about marriage. The world didn’t end when same-sex marriage was legalized civilly. Why? Because the government’s determination of the civil word marriage, which means something completely different than the Catholic word marriage, doesn’t affect the metaphysical meaning of marriage.

Honestly, the government should not be calling anything a marriage; it has no authority to recognize any marriage, valid or otherwise, and it has no authority to apply civil marriages to anyone. The government, if it wants to recognize loving relationships, should be using a different term.

 

[Rau]

Right, but the government doesn’t “define” anything about marriage. The world didn’t end when same-sex marriage was legalized civilly. Why? Because the government’s determination of the civil word marriage, which means something completely different than the Catholic word marriage, doesn’t affect the metaphysical meaning of marriage.

Honestly, the government should not be calling anything a marriage; it has no authority to recognize any marriage, valid or otherwise, and it has no authority to apply civil marriages to anyone. The government, if it wants to recognize loving relationships, should be using a different term.

And I’m not sure the Government needs to make “love” a factor in any of its laws.

 

[Elizium23]

And I’m not sure the Government needs to make “love” a factor in any of its laws.

In fostering traditional marriage, the government had a vested interest in supporting them because of their status as the building block of society and the only acceptable way to bear and raise children. The real danger here is that the government, in not just condoning easy divorce but also openly endorsing sterile unions, it has lost its high ground and opened the door for many other things to fall into the definition of “marriage” as well. Polygamy and incest come to mind, pedophilia and bestality can’t be far behind.

For more information, please read Discussing Marriage: The argument from public interest.

 

[CbusCatholic]

Well, the gay marriage topic is controversial, but the Church’s view on it is that it is not moral. The reason couples wed is to have children, and due to the fact that two members of the same sex cannot have biological children, it is not moral. God put gay people on this earth that way and they’re orientation is the only thing tgat sets them apart. I heard a quote that something like gay people have a special cross to bear, which is to refrain from marriage since their true attraction is to the same sex (which is not their fault and therefore not bad). We all have crosses to carry and theirs sure isn’t the worst one

Hope this helps
God bless you

 

[spunjalebi]

I don’t consider this to be “fighting”. We are discussing…exchanging ideas and opinions.

When I join a thread with a topic of homosexuality and/or same-sex unions I remain on the secular side because there are many Catholics on CAF who are better at defending the Church’s position than I.

Also, and more importantly, I do not need the teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, or any religion, to convince me that homosexuality is not normal and a same-sex “marriage” is impossible. Frankly I think the Church is being very kind when it uses the word “disordered”. My choice is “perversion”.

Therefore, in discussing the question of this thread…** Is it wrong to not oppose secular gay marriage?**…from a secular, non religious position…YES. It is certainly WRONG to NOT oppose secular gay “marriage”.

Why?

Because it is simply a very stupid idea. There is not one single societal benefit in redefining marriage to include a same-sex union.

I have tried. with every argument I have posted on this and other threads. to avoid religious objections and focus on a logical and reasonable secular position.

I know I am not in the majority with this position, but I am amazed by the many non-religious secularists who agree with me.

So, spunjalebi, old friend. While we may agree about this on the Religious side, I strongly disagree on the secular side.

Marriage is between a man and a woman Period!

Oh, I oppose it. Whether or not I think Catholic doctrine should be part of law is an entirely different story. I voted “yes” to have a marriage amendment in my state (it didn’t pass, big surprise). But lately, I am wondering if giving the government the authority to make an official “definition” is superfluous because we already know what is the definition of marriage.

I’m not sure there is really anything left for me to say I won’t attend a “gay wedding,” and I won’t recognize a homosexual union as a “marriage.” But no amount of push has been able to convince my state’s government otherwise, so in that regard I think there’s not much of a fight left. The best thing we can do is to emphasize the importance of traditional family life across society. There’s already plenty of documented evidence on the importance of two-parent, heterosexual families on children. I already know what catechism says, and that’s good enough for me.

 

[randomusername]

The thing with secular marriage and gay marriage is that we’re undermining what marriage is. Most people are already having sex before marriage, a lot of couples live together before marriage now, there are far, far, far more babies born out of wedlock than there was even in the recent past.

Marriage is a dying thing and changing it’s definition would be another nail in the coffin. In 100 years there might only be a few people getting married anymore if we don’t try to protect it.

 

[glendab]

Hello Elizium.

In fostering traditional marriage, the government had a vested interest in supporting them because of their status as the building block of society and the only acceptable way to bear and raise children. The real danger here is that the government, in not just condoning easy divorce but also openly endorsing sterile unions, it has lost its high ground and opened the door for many other things to fall into the definition of “marriage” as well. Polygamy and incest come to mind, pedophilia and bestality can’t be far behind.

For more information, please read Discussing Marriage: The argument from public interest.

You are 100% right. If the government can no longer see the difference between right and wrong, we’re all in trouble. You thing you left off the list: nationally legalized prostitution. It isn’t far away either. We are experiencing the decline of a once great nation. How long before we bottom out and wake up and try and re-build? Who knows. We’re still on the down slope. The good news is eventually we will hit the bottom.

Glenda

 

[shelby_sun]

In fostering traditional marriage, the government had a vested interest in supporting them because of their status as the building block of society and the only acceptable way to bear and raise children. The real danger here is that the government, in not just condoning easy divorce but also openly endorsing sterile unions, it has lost its high ground and opened the door for many other things to fall into the definition of “marriage” as well. Polygamy and incest come to mind, pedophilia and bestality can’t be far behind.

For more information, please read Discussing Marriage: The argument from public interest.

Acceptable to you and your beliefs, but there are many Americans that do not necessary agree with the Catholic Church. So why should government follow what the Catholic church says just because it happens to be what you believe? I wouldn’t want the government to make its rules following another religion.

I can hardly see our government allowing bestiality, although I am sure you were being extreme for the affect, especially when it get so upset about a murder having to suffer when put to death.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Acceptable to you and your beliefs, but there are many Americans that do not necessary agree with the Catholic Church. So why should government follow what the Catholic church says just because it happens to be what you believe? I wouldn’t want the government to make its rules following another religion.

I can hardly see our government allowing bestiality, although I am sure you were being extreme for the affect, especially when it get so upset about a murder having to suffer when put to death.

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.

It is an understanding of First Amendment jurisprudence that the mere fact that a civil law harmonizes or agrees with religious beliefs is not grounds for finding an Establishment Clause (Establishment of a religion) violation.

Certainly, if the civil law granted recognition only to sacramental marriages as defined in the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church, this would violate the Establishment Clause. But no law does this.

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

If it were based simply on Catholic teaching, our opponents could say:
“You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others.” Actually the TRUTH is the reason that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status.