W
WetCatechumen
Guest
I agree with you.
Which is why I think churches should no longer be allowed to perform civil marriages. Because I don’t want them to force us to.
- Status
Which is why I think churches should no longer be allowed to perform civil marriages. Because I don’t want them to force us to.
H
Holly3278
Guest
Take a look at this document from the Vatican. It concerns legal recognition of same-sex unions:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
T
thewanderer
Guest
I just want to point out that you are setting up a false dichotomy. You are suggesting that if someone is against homosexual marriage they are against it because of religious reasons and if someone does not allow their personal religious beliefs to dictate all their opinions of legal matters they must necessarily approve of homosexual marriages.
I do not want homosexual marriage, but it is not a matter of “because my religion says such a thing is immoral”. Instead it is because of my whole philosophy of politics. I can go on to try to explain that if you want me to, but the point being that you can be opposed to homosexual marriage without being led solely by the fact that your religion says such relationships are immoral.
I do not want homosexual marriage, but it is not a matter of “because my religion says such a thing is immoral”. Instead it is because of my whole philosophy of politics. I can go on to try to explain that if you want me to, but the point being that you can be opposed to homosexual marriage without being led solely by the fact that your religion says such relationships are immoral.
D
Dredgemate
Guest
fine, I’m comfortable with that, but if there’s going to be a dramatic push from conservative Catholics on “Protecting Marriage” why isn’t there an equal amount of fervor concerning Contraception, Divorce, Pre-Maritial Sex, Pornography, etc…?
D
Dredgemate
Guest
No I haven’t, I’m a happily married Heterosexual man, married in the Church and abiding by it’s teachings. Just because I have an opinon that runs counter to a very insignificant issue doesn’t mean I’ve run afoul of Rome.
S
stewstew03
Guest
That’s like asking, “where is the abolitionist’s fervor concerning the 13th amendment?”
.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Because not all conservative catholics base their opinions of how the govt should behave solely on what actions are considered immoral by the Catholic Church. They use reason to determine how things ought to be done. There are actually some very good arguments against raising homosexual relationships to the status of a legal marriage that are not at all based on “theCatholic Church says homosexual relationships are immoral”.
D
Dredgemate
Guest
Hardly. The 13th amendment resolved the problem of slavery. Banning gay people from getting married will not solve (or further cause) the erosion of traditional marriage. If you’re gonna stand on a platform of “traditional marriage” you’d be better suited to ban everything that is directly corrosive to the institution: Pornography and Masturbation, Adultery, ABC, Abortion, etc…
D
Dredgemate
Guest
A debate about the issues set in a secular arena is fine (preferable in fact). But, that’s not what the OP was asking.Because not all conservative catholics base their opinions of how the govt should behave solely on what actions are considered immoral by the Catholic Church. They use reason to determine how things ought to be done. There are actually some very good arguments against raising homosexual relationships to the status of a legal marriage that are not at all based on “theCatholic Church says homosexual relationships are immoral”.
T
thewanderer
Guest
The OP is setting up a false dichotomy. He is assuming that conservative catholics are just trying to push their religious beliefs and practices on others. This might be true for some of them, but for the vast majority they have other reasons for their opinions.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I was answering your question. The reason you are so perplexed as to why conservative catholics aren’t clamoring to criminalize contraception etc is that you make the same assumption as the OP, namely, that Catholics who oppose homosexual marriage do so solely for the reason that their religion says such a relationship is immoral. This is just simply not true of the majority of people opposed to homosexual marriage.
D
Dredgemate
Guest
No perplexion here. (I think you’re in the minority, by the way.I was answering your question. The reason you are so perplexed as to why conservative catholics aren’t clamoring to criminalize contraception etc is that you make the same assumption as the OP, namely, that Catholics who oppose homosexual marriage do so solely for the reason that their religion says such a relationship is immoral. This is just simply not true of the majority of people opposed to homosexual marriage.
)My problem is that a stand of traditional values based on sacred beliefs should be complete, not just cherry picked.
T
thewanderer
Guest
well, when you find someone who clearly admits (not just says something that leads you to assume) that the sole reason they are against homosexual marriage is because their religion says such a relationship is immoral, then feel free to call them out on cherry picking.No perplexion here. (I think you’re in the minority, by the way.
My problem is that a stand of traditional values based on sacred beliefs should be complete, not just cherry picked.
Thing is, that lots of people are not very good at seperating out the different reasons why they are against something and are not very good at articulating it all clearly. Just because someone uses a generic argument or doesn’t go into an in depth reply, or isn’t careful to make it clear that their opinion is not solely based on the immorality of an act according to their religion doesn’t mean that they they therefore have no reason apart from the immorality of the act to be against it.
Pretty much everyone who is against it thinks that it is important for society to have a special incentive set up for people to have kids in loving, safe, and stable envrironments. This has nothing to do with whether or not homosexual relationships are considered moral by the church and everything to do with a rational consideration of what social and legal structures are good and/or bad for society. Trust me, there are more like me than you think.
D
Dredgemate
Guest
well, when you find someone who clearly admits (not just says something that leads you to assume) that the sole reason they are against homosexual marriage is because their religion says such a relationship is immoral, then feel free to call them out on cherry picking.
D
Dredgemate
Guest
This thread is littered with them.well, when you find someone who clearly admits (not just says something that leads you to assume) that the sole reason they are against homosexual marriage is because their religion says such a relationship is immoral, then feel free to call them out on cherry picking.
Thing is, that lots of people are not very good at seperating out the different reasons why they are against something and are not very good at articulating it all clearly. Just because someone uses a generic argument or doesn’t go into an in depth reply, or isn’t careful to make it clear that their opinion is not solely based on the immorality of an act according to their religion doesn’t mean that they they therefore have no reason apart from the immorality of the act to be against it.
Pretty much everyone who is against it thinks that it is important for society to have a special incentive set up for people to have kids in loving, safe, and stable envrironments. This has nothing to do with whether or not homosexual relationships are considered moral by the church and everything to do with a rational consideration of what social and legal structures are good and/or bad for society. Trust me, there are more like me than you think.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Have you taken the time to find out whether or not their reasons to be against it really boils down to “everything that my church says is immoral should be illegal”? Like I said, people often do not take the time to clearly differentiate between such things. They use language which does not always correctly express their full opinion on the matter. Personally, I have never met someone who believes that the fact that something is immoral necessarily means that it ought to be made illegal, and so, whenever they thought something should be illegal ( or not made into a special legal circumstance etc) it was never based simply on the fact that it was immoral. It is easier for someone to say “The Church says this is wrong” then to go into a detailed explanation of what they think. Maybe I’m wrong and there are more people like that than I realize… but the fact that there was recently a thread where the consensus was very clearly that homosexual acts should not be made illegal is a sign that people have other reasons beyond just “the church says its wrong” They make distinctions between different political actions and laws based on all sorts of things that are rooted in their worldview. Like I said, trust me, there are more like me than you think, they are just not always careful to distinguish their other reasons from the church’s judgement of immorality.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
There is a heirarchy of sin as explained by St Thomas Aquinas which explains the particular effect of lust on the reason and of it’s potential in obscuring the most important and fundamental law in nature. (Sorry it’s just a Wiki page but it’s a good summary)
In II II 154 12 he posits that the unnatural vices are the worst sins in the overall category of lustful sin: “since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all. … With regard to the other species of lust they imply a transgression merely of that which is determined by right reason, on the presupposition, however, of natural principles.” In other words, “the unnatural vices” transgress nature and reason, whereas other forms of lust transgress only reason.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AThomas_Aquinas/Modern_Criticism
S
stewstew03
Guest
I believe you have missed the point, mate.
Let me put it another way - Do we, as Catholic laypeople, devote our limited time/energy/resources to extinguishing a few burning coals (contraception, divorce, etc.) or the raging fire that is gay marriage?
.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Ever heard of the Pro-Life movement?
S
ShadyBagon
Guest
for clarity’s sake I feel that I should mention that I am not posting this to undermine any view or to say that what I feel is right or would or should be supported by any Catholic, but rather to raise a different viewpoint.
From a legal standpoint the government has no grounds to deny a same sex marriage (this is not to be viewed as saying they must accept it.) In truth for the government to recognize any form of marriage is overstepping the bounds of religious freedom, but if they are to do so, they must recognize any union between people regardless of the terminology that is attributed to it. I have long suspected that a more appropriate way of dealing with these things would be for the government to recognize all relationships as civil unions as having the same legal benefits and allowing respective religions to sort out the terminology (truly curious to hear opinions on this one.)
The viewpoint that I hope to raise is only that to judge so harshly here is to take the place of God. To deny these people your love is to judge them on earth as only God might. To say that they could not consummate but only achieve sodomy is to polarize a population, as you against them. Recognizing another person as something other than less than human puts them in a much better state to hear your words, to understand your view.
I won’t try to throw out arguments that everyone has heard before but what has made sense to me is that man must find his own path to God, and while it may very well be a sin to enter into a homosexual relationship, it is not one to say that another should not be cast aside for a desire to find love. It is not our place to say whether a person’s actions are against God for indeed we are all sinners, none above any other. It is instead up to God to weigh our sins against our deeds, only he can decide if our sins can be forgiven.
From a legal standpoint the government has no grounds to deny a same sex marriage (this is not to be viewed as saying they must accept it.) In truth for the government to recognize any form of marriage is overstepping the bounds of religious freedom, but if they are to do so, they must recognize any union between people regardless of the terminology that is attributed to it. I have long suspected that a more appropriate way of dealing with these things would be for the government to recognize all relationships as civil unions as having the same legal benefits and allowing respective religions to sort out the terminology (truly curious to hear opinions on this one.)
The viewpoint that I hope to raise is only that to judge so harshly here is to take the place of God. To deny these people your love is to judge them on earth as only God might. To say that they could not consummate but only achieve sodomy is to polarize a population, as you against them. Recognizing another person as something other than less than human puts them in a much better state to hear your words, to understand your view.
I won’t try to throw out arguments that everyone has heard before but what has made sense to me is that man must find his own path to God, and while it may very well be a sin to enter into a homosexual relationship, it is not one to say that another should not be cast aside for a desire to find love. It is not our place to say whether a person’s actions are against God for indeed we are all sinners, none above any other. It is instead up to God to weigh our sins against our deeds, only he can decide if our sins can be forgiven.
- Status