Is it wrong to not oppose secular gay marriage?

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Listen, I get the arguments, I really do. However, there are always going to be questions the opposing side has to answer:

If marriage between a man and a woman is necessary for the continuation of the State, what about people who are infertile? People who find out after marriage they’re infertile? People who get married over the age of fertility? People who choose not to have children? Elderly grandparents who remarry? Are any of those people assisting the continuation of the State? Do any of those people have any business getting married? If marriage is going to be tied up into biological heterosexual fertility, I think it’s time we start coming up with some honest answers.

Yes, infertile men and women get married. Marriage is between men and women, fertile or not. It is a truth that ONLY men and women who marry are capable of sustaining the state.
Recognizing a union that cannot, in itself, sustain the state is beyond the authority of the state.

The Church lists infertility, defects, and the rejection of children as impediments to a marriage and grounds for annulment. But the Church allows the infertile and the elderly to marry because they had, have or may have the capability to produce children.

The burden of establishing that homosexual unions are in need of recognition, as well as being necessary (continuation of the State) and beneficial to the common good, as marriage, is necessarily on those who wish to redefine the status of marriage.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I think that the justices of the Supreme Court would laugh you out of their courtroom. Talking as if we don’t live a country that has civil laws is ridiculous.

We do have civil laws and they are necessary.

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

The State has the authority to enact traffic laws to protect drivers. **But it has no authority or power to change the laws of physics **so that vehicle 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.

 

[Elizium23]

Listen, I get the arguments, I really do. However, there are always going to be questions the opposing side has to answer:

If marriage between a man and a woman is necessary for the continuation of the State, what about people who are infertile? People who find out after marriage they’re infertile? People who get married over the age of fertility? People who choose not to have children? Elderly grandparents who remarry? Are any of those people assisting the continuation of the State? Do any of those people have any business getting married? If marriage is going to be tied up into biological heterosexual fertility, I think it’s time we start coming up with some honest answers.

Discussing Marriage: The argument from infertility.

 

[spunjalebi]

Discussing Marriage: The argument from infertility.

Okay, I see the real question continues to be avoided. I will ask it again:

What does the State defining marriage have to do with how the Church defines marriage? Why does it matter how the State does or does not choose to define marriage when it has no affect on our sacraments?

 

[Elizium23]

Well, I was addressing the questions in your immediately previous post, not avoiding your other question. But if you really want answers to that one instead, whilst avoiding my answers to your questions, then try this one on for size:

Discussing Marriage: The argument from public interest

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Okay, I see the real question continues to be avoided. I will ask it again:

What does the State defining marriage have to do with how the Church defines marriage? Why does it matter how the State does or does not choose to define marriage when it has no affect on our sacraments?

It matters because it is wrong.

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.

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 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 of saying that truth is the reason that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status.

This is probably offensive to those who deny the existence of truth, who prefer to live in a world dominated by what Pope Benedict XVI termed a “dictatorship of relativism.” The Holy Father identified this “dictatorship of relativism” as “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 the truth of 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.

 

[spunjalebi]

Well, I was addressing the questions in your immediately previous post, not avoiding your other question. But if you really want answers to that one instead, whilst avoiding my answers to your questions, then try this one on for size:

Discussing Marriage: The argument from public interest

I’m not avoiding anything. I believe what the Church teaches. That is not the problem I see. The problem is the rest of the society does not care what the Church teaches to be sacramental marriage, truth, etc. Even though there are other religious beliefs which match our beliefs toward homosexuality, such as Judaism and Islam, the people of those faiths have taken a different avenue when it comes to public policy. Why? Why don’t we see Jews and Islamics who believe marriage is between a man and a woman taking the same public stand against it? Hinduism also asserts marriages are sacraments and their culture is largely conservative. Yet, they aren’t approaching this in the same way we are with public policy?

I don’t think we can convince the State marriage existed before the State’s existence, or heterosexual marriage has been the default marriage definition.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

and what about hermaphrodites? any union with them automatically sinful? I would think not.

 

[glendab]

Hello Spunjalebi.

My issue stems from the fact the Church requires a civil marriage license before the sacramental marriage date. Why do we have to be recognized by the State first before we have a sacrament? That’s why I don’t think the Church should be forced to acknowledge a civil marriage first before a marriage ceremony.

You’re only talking about the procedures around getting married in the Church in this country and others who have similar marriage regulations. It is possible to obtain a Sacramental, Church Wedding and NOT have a marriage license. Newsflash: the Sacrament of Matrimony has been the Church’s business for two millennia. The issuing of marriage licenses and all the civil laws regarding marriage according to the State, whatever State one is residing in vary according to the length of time of the ruling party, whether King and Queen, Dictator, Democratic Republic or Commonwealth, etc. That is the part that shifts and changes with the ruling party’s dictates. It clashes with the Church often. The OP’s question is regarding whether or no it is possible to abstain from engaging the culture in the same sex marriages that some politicos want to force on the population. I think the theology behind the OP’s and several other posters is moral relativism or some other problem that gives one permission to refrain and condescend to a culture run amok.

So that said, it is possible to be married in the eyes of the Church but not in the eyes of the State. Think back to when this Country was forming and the Jesuit’s and other were busy about the Sacraments, etc. and folks got married and the States were still forming. As each State formed it had to come up with a body of civil laws that had to conform to the framework of the Constitution. That is when each State decided its own marriage laws. Take Utah for instance, the home of Mormonism and polygamy. They weren’t allowed to become a State until they outlawed bigamy and polygamy. There are still those Mormons who live outlawed lives so as to live their religion’s ability to have multiple partners in marriage. If same sex marriage is allowed then they will have an envelope to push forward that will say polygamous marriages allowed and they have plenty of money saved up in their Temple’s Banks to do a number on us in the courts for years and years.

Glenda

 

[sw85]

Listen, I get the arguments, I really do. However, there are always going to be questions the opposing side has to answer:

If marriage between a man and a woman is necessary for the continuation of the State, what about people who are infertile? People who find out after marriage they’re infertile?

Let’s think about it from a purely civil perspective. If the drinking age is about making sure only mature, responsible people have access to alcohol, why don’t we just measure maturity/responsibility instead of an arbitrary drinking age? Surely there are mature people under 21, and immature people over 21, right?

Of course, but is it within the purview of the state to assess someone’s maturity? How would it do that in a manner that isn’t wildly invasive? A 21-year-old drinking age is a bright line, that’s all. Generally, by 21, it’s reasonable to expect that someone has maturity sufficient to handle alcohol responsibly. And we can verify whether or not someone is 21 a lot more easily than we can verify whether someone is responsible.

In a similar way, how would the state assess whether a particular couple is “infertile”? It’s not usually a yes/no thing, it’s a sliding scale thing. What would it do, audit their medical records or something? It has no means at its disposal to assess “fertility.” It uses sexual complementarity as a proxy. Why? Because sexual complementarity is obvious, and because it’s is intrinsically fertile, even if some particular sexually complimentary couples are accidentally infertile.

People who get married over the age of fertility?

Remind me again, what is the “age of fertility” and when does it end?

People who choose not to have children?

If I were a university registrar, I would still register someone for classes who had no intention of ever putting their degree to use. On the other hand, I might look sideways at someone who tried to register, say, their bulldog for classes.

 

[BornInMarch]

Not everybody needs to take a stance for or against an issue like this. Contrary to the popular belief of both supporters and opponents, it is possible to be neutral. If someone doesn’t feel strongly for or against something like this than they need not pick a side.

 

[sw85]

If the Church already has a definition of marriage, why does it matter if the State creates a new definition of marriage? We no longer have an overlap of the Church and the State-- that was destroyed during the Reformation. If the State says it’s legal for three parents to be recognized for children, it doesn’t change the fact the Church has defined families, parentage, and marriage differently.

If the Church has its own definition of triangularity, why does it matter if the State declares that triangles can have four sides? After all, separation of Church and state.

Ahh, its because triangularity just is a fact about reality which neither Church nor state are free to alter on a whim. And refusal to deal with reality as it is is, by definition, psychotic. And that means the Church would have to be governed by a psychotic state.

 

[glendab]

Hello BornInMarch.

Not everybody needs to take a stance for or against an issue like this. Contrary to the popular belief of both supporters and opponents, it is possible to be neutral. If someone doesn’t feel strongly for or against something like this than they need not pick a side.

No. Absolutely not. There is no grey area. This is a very black and white issue. You are either for homosexuality or against it. Our religion has been against it ever since Moses received the Law and the abominations of it were restated under the New Covenant. You cannot claim neutral grounds on this issue. It isn’t about picking sides as in a fight in the school yard. It is about remaining faithful to our Church’s teaching regarding the matter. When you pick a side to stand on, you are waiting for someone else to come along and declare a winner, so even if you do choose the side of the Church, it will be a matter of time before you see the fight as over and accept the arbitrators rulings. Besides this, it opens the door to a compromise of sorts that cannot be EVER!

So, no, BornInMarch. There is no grey area that is safe to tread upon in this particular matter.

That however doesn’t mean lack of charity for those afflicted with SSA and who are genuinely struggling to be freed of it as if leperous and seeking asylum in the Church. WE are Catholics. We love the sinner but not the sins.

Glenda

 

[spunjalebi]

Hello BornInMarch.

No. Absolutely not. There is no grey area. This is a very black and white issue. You are either for homosexuality or against it. Our religion has been against it ever since Moses received the Law and the abominations of it were restated under the New Covenant. You cannot claim neutral grounds on this issue. It isn’t about picking sides as in a fight in the school yard. It is about remaining faithful to our Church’s teaching regarding the matter. When you pick a side to stand on, you are waiting for someone else to come along and declare a winner, so even if you do choose the side of the Church, it will be a matter of time before you see the fight as over and accept the arbitrators rulings. Besides this, it opens the door to a compromise of sorts that cannot be EVER!

So, no, BornInMarch. There is no grey area that is safe to tread upon in this particular matter.

That however doesn’t mean lack of charity for those afflicted with SSA and who are genuinely struggling to be freed of it as if leperous and seeking asylum in the Church. WE are Catholics. We love the sinner but not the sins.

Glenda

TBH, I interpreted his comments to be more along whether or not we should take a stance concerning public policy. Especially since public policy will not and according to our constitution, cannot affect our religious policies and beliefs. For instance, I am against homosexual behavior, but do not see how a public policy “recognizing” a same-sex union is going to affect marriages between men and women from a natural marriage and religious marriage view.

 

[Rau]

…I am against homosexual behavior, but do not see how a public policy “recognizing” a same-sex union is going to affect marriages between men and women from a natural marriage and religious marriage view.

So long as it is not confused with Marriage, it will not.

What is required (or ought to be all that is required) of the State is the provision of the legal framework that 2 people intending to share assets, mutually care for each other, and so on might reasonably require.

 

[glendab]

Hello Spunjalebi.

TBH, I interpreted his comments to be more along whether or not we should take a stance concerning public policy. Especially since public policy will not and according to our constitution, cannot affect our religious policies and beliefs. For instance, I am against homosexual behavior, but do not see how a public policy “recognizing” a same-sex union is going to affect marriages between men and women from a natural marriage and religious marriage view.

The Church has stated that it will have an impact on marriage as a whole. That should be enough for any Catholic, but since it isn’t for you, read more of the official statements about it made by various Bishops and Archbishops in our country and see what the Church says. It might help you realize a little something.

Glenda

 

[kozlosap]

Hello BornInMarch.

No. Absolutely not. There is no grey area. This is a very black and white issue. You are either for homosexuality or against it. Our religion has been against it ever since Moses received the Law and the abominations of it were restated under the New Covenant. You cannot claim neutral grounds on this issue. It isn’t about picking sides as in a fight in the school yard. It is about remaining faithful to our Church’s teaching regarding the matter. When you pick a side to stand on, you are waiting for someone else to come along and declare a winner, so even if you do choose the side of the Church, it will be a matter of time before you see the fight as over and accept the arbitrators rulings. Besides this, it opens the door to a compromise of sorts that cannot be EVER!

So, no, BornInMarch. There is no grey area that is safe to tread upon in this particular matter.

That however doesn’t mean lack of charity for those afflicted with SSA and who are genuinely struggling to be freed of it as if leperous and seeking asylum in the Church. WE are Catholics. We love the sinner but not the sins.

Glenda

There is no such stance as being for gay or, in addition, against gayness. If you want to argue that you think that gay sex is immoral, then fine, but there are gay humans who are celibate, but still very much gay. Are you “against” them too?

 

[spunjalebi]

Hello Spunjalebi.

The Church has stated that it will have an impact on marriage as a whole. That should be enough for any Catholic, but since it isn’t for you, read more of the official statements about it made by various Bishops and Archbishops in our country and see what the Church says. It might help you realize a little something.

Glenda

I don’t find your thinly veiled insults to be impressive, sorry. Btw, many Catholics in various states have varying beliefs about this issue. While Catholics in some states are being told to vote no against a marriage amendment banning gay unions, other Catholics in different states are being told to vote yes to not ban gay unions because their argument is by voting to allow the State to ban gay marriage, they are allowing the State to still define what marriage is. Clearly, it’s not as simple when it comes to politics, in spite of how black and white the faith makes it.

Don’t ever imply Church teaching isn’t enough for me. I know full well what Church teaching is, and I’ve already said I am against homosexual “marriages.” I would not attend a homosexual wedding, recognize a homosexual marriage, or approve of one. That is in line with Church teaching.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Btw, many Catholics in various states have varying beliefs about this issue.

There is only one authentic Catholic “belief” about this subject and it is consistent with Catholic teaching. Any other “belief” is clearly in dissent.

While Catholics in some states are being told to vote no against a marriage amendment banning gay unions, other Catholics in different states are being told to vote yes to not ban gay unions because their argument is by voting to allow the State to ban gay marriage, they are allowing the State to still define what marriage is. Clearly, it’s not as simple when it comes to politics, in spite of how black and white the faith makes it.

I’m not sure WHO is telling Catholics how to vote, but proposed laws in different states are…well…different. A proposed law in one state may be in agreement with Catholic teaching while a law in another state may be a violation. Catholics should be well informed and vote according to their religious principals.

 

[spunjalebi]

There is only one authentic Catholic “belief” about this subject and it is consistent with Catholic teaching. Any other “belief” is clearly in dissent.

I’m not sure WHO is telling Catholics how to vote, but proposed laws in different states are…well…different. A proposed law in one state may be in agreement with Catholic teaching while a law in another state may be a violation. Catholics should be well informed and vote according to their religious principals.

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.