Is my position on this acceptable for a Roman Catholic?

[thewanderer]

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.

I’m sure your post will be met by a whole flood of arguments, but I would just like to point out that the idea that the govt has no reason to make a special legal contract for the one group of people and not the other is simply your opinion and I absolutely can think of good reasons for the govt to do this that have nothing to do with religion. Please take this into account when considering other peoples views on this and so refrain from claiming that people who are against SSM are just trying to be God or lack love towards those afflicted with SSM. The argument against adding homosexual relationships to the legal contract has nothing to do with whether or not homosexual acts are sinful, and all to do with what the govts involvement in marriage should be. It is often peoples differing opinions on that point that determine whether they are for or against SSM.

 

[LongingSoul]

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. .

That’s silly. Where does the authority of the law come from if not from a more primary law capable of being known through the reason and observation of man? Our laws can’t simply be subject to the whims of fancy, and retain the aura of ‘authority’.

The Australian PM is an example of a view based on natural law. She is an atheist but rejects gay marriage legislation as contravening natural law.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

Okay …

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.)

This is complete nonsense. During the four thousand years of recorded history, no government on earth had ever accepted homosexual couples as “married” until very, very recently. Heterosexual couples living together with their own children were given the status of “common law” in cases where no formal wedding had taken place, after living together a certain length of time, but even that was frowned on for most of history.

Since the time of Christ, marriage has been recognized as the ceremony that unites the founders of a new family - a mother and father.

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.

To mention obvious facts is not to lack love for people; nor is anyone saying that they are “less than human.” Obviously they are human. Equally obviously, they cannot be the future of the human race.

Love is not sex. You don’t need sex to have deep love. Love is the decision to do what is good for the other person.

 

[ShadyBagon]

Love is not sex. You don’t need sex to have deep love. Love is the decision to do what is good for the other person.

And isn’t that sort of contradictory to the larger point being made here? Would a chaste same sex marriage be any more acceptable under the Catholic religion?

Further, the governments proceeding this one have nothing to do with what is or is not nonsense. Marriage is a religious institution. If the government is to acknowledge some religious unions, they are forced to recognize ones that are not Catholic. There are sects within Christianity and outside of Christianity that do recognize same sex marriage.

And you’re absolutely right about specific facts, the problem being that none are being stated in this thread. Facts are something very different than what has been stated here. Referring to people different from you as “afflicted,” (which I acknowledge you did not say here) would be an example of referring to someone as less than.

 

[jmcrae]

And isn’t that sort of contradictory to the larger point being made here? Would a chaste same sex marriage be any more acceptable under the Catholic religion?

No. But homosexuals living as room mates wouldn’t even be noticed, or remarkable. A deep friendship between two people of the same sex is perfectly fine. What the Church objects to is sexual activity outside of the kind of a marriage that has at least theoretically got the ability to be the foundation of a family - that is to say, the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Further, the governments proceeding this one have nothing to do with what is or is not nonsense. Marriage is a religious institution.

Before it is a religious institution, it is a social institution. There was marriage long before there were Sacraments, and long before any form of organized religion.

Adam and Eve had no religion of any kind, and certainly had no Church or Temple wedding ceremony, but they were a married couple who produced children - and because they were married and produced children, the human race exists. If Adam had left himself an “out” such that if things were to go wrong he could leave Eve to fend for herself, their children would not have survived. Adam made a commitment to Eve to stay with her no matter how bad things got - and they did get bad - but he stayed - and because he stayed, we are here today.

Families are the building blocks of societies. Unions that can’t result in families are not useful to society, in the long run. They will not be recorded in anyone’s ancestry.

 

[devoutchristian]

And isn’t that sort of contradictory to the larger point being made here? Would a chaste same sex marriage be any more acceptable under the Catholic religion?

Further, the governments proceeding this one have nothing to do with what is or is not nonsense. Marriage is a religious institution. If the government is to acknowledge some religious unions, they are forced to recognize ones that are not Catholic. There are sects within Christianity and outside of Christianity that do recognize same sex marriage.

And you’re absolutely right about specific facts, the problem being that none are being stated in this thread. Facts are something very different than what has been stated here. Referring to people different from you as “afflicted,” (which I acknowledge you did not say here) would be an example of referring to someone as less than.

You make the erroneous assumption that the state should treat all religions equally.

 

[ShadyBagon]

You make the erroneous assumption that the state should treat all religions equally.

Actually I do not make that assumption. That is my opinion, but that is irrelevant. The separation of church and state, however, demands that the state give equal treatment to all religions, or none. The state should not give any recognition to marriage at all. Marriage has nothing to do with the secular laws of man, and recognizing one religion as real and another as else, in the view of the state, is denial of religious freedom. I would like everyone to think for a moment what that might mean in a hypothetical future where catholicism is not the majority.

 

[devoutchristian]

The separation of church and state, however, demands that the state give equal treatment to all religions, or none.

And that is why the separation should be abolished, so that the state would act more in line with the objective order of reality.

 

[stewstew03]

…
The state should not give any recognition to marriage at all. Marriage has nothing to do with the secular laws of man, and recognizing one religion as real and another as else, in the view of the state, is denial of religious freedom.
…

I’m going to go out on a limb here and venture to guess that you’re not a family law attorney, and that you’ve had zero experience with our judicial system as it relates to parents/children…

.

 

[ShadyBagon]

I’m going to go out on a limb here and venture to guess that you’re not a family law attorney, and that you’ve had zero experience with our judicial system as it relates to parents/children…

.

You’re absolutely right. That was a silly sweeping generalization with zero background knowledge to support it. It’s just that my viewpoint is more that requiring a state to sign off on your marriage as legitimate is much more demeaning to the institution than having someone you might not agree with be referred to with the same terminology.

And that is why the separation should be abolished, so that the state would act more in line with the subjective order of reality.
.

You don’t find that point of view dangerous at all? To want to deny basic liberties to members of other religions sets a very risky track should someone else ever make up a majority.

 

[devoutchristian]

You don’t find that point of view dangerous at all? To want to deny basic liberties to members of other religions sets a very risky track should someone else ever make up a majority.

I said nothing about denying basic liberties to anyone, I merely said that the state should profess the true religion, rather than no religion.

 

[ShadyBagon]

I said nothing about denying basic liberties to anyone, I merely said that the state should profess my religion, rather than no religion.

And what happens when someone in power should find another religion to be true? This is why the separation was created.

 

[devoutchristian]

And what happens when someone in power should find another religion to be true?

And that’s why I don’t support dictatorship. In any case secularism has the same problem, leaders could change the laws to support a religion.

 

[ShadyBagon]

And that’s why I don’t support dictatorship. In any case secularism has the same problem, leaders could change the laws to support a religion.

Just for some clarity, is it your viewpoint that the state should recognize only Catholic marriage and no other? Depending on the response, is there any situation where another religion should have a union legitimized by the state? Is it your view that a union between two men or women that was chaste would never be able to raise a child appropriately, and should never be enabled to receive the same rights as a heterosexual union? We can probably agree at least that a single parent would be less effective than two parents, would two parents raising an adopted child, in a same sex union, lets say a chaste one, be more or less effective than a single parent family? (I apologize, I am extrapolating for some of these, I really do not mean to assume viewpoints)

 

[devoutchristian]

Just for some clarity, is it your viewpoint that the state should recognize only Catholic marriage and no other? Depending on the response, is there any situation where another religion should have a union legitimized by the state? Is it your view that a union between two men or women that was chaste would never be able to raise a child appropriately, and should never be enabled to receive the same rights as a heterosexual union? We can probably agree at least that a single parent would be less effective than two parents, would two parents raising an adopted child, in a same sex union, lets say a chaste one, be more or less effective than a single parent family? (I apologize, I am extrapolating for some of these, I really do not mean to assume viewpoints)

I believe that there should be civil marriages for non-Catholics, provided that they are at least presumptively valid. I don’t believe that joint adoption should be a possibility for non-married couples.

 

[Dredgemate]

I said nothing about denying basic liberties to anyone, I merely said that the state should profess the true religion, rather than no religion.

There a more than a few Countries that operate this way. Iran and Saudi Arabia come to mind…

 

[devoutchristian]

There a more than a few Countries that operate this way. Iran and Saudi Arabia come to mind…

Iran and Saudi Arabia both profess false religions, so that is a Red Herring.

 

[sheilathebard]

It really bothers me that five pages worth of people were willing to say, categorically, that the OP is a heretic, but no one can actually cite a source for a doctrinal declaration which requires us to hold a particular political position on same sex marriage.

ONE person mentioned the CDF document, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons. What they didn’t mention is that it was not written by the Pope or a Council, and not definitively defined. So it ISN’T infallible.

That’s the only guidance we have, an advisory document by bishops. Nothing from the Pope. Nothing from the Councils. Nothing from Scripture.

What a Catholic MUST believe is that homosexual activity is a mortal sin. Our political opinions — i.e. how far the state must go to defend traditional marriage – are up for debate, and there are faithful Catholics who believe both ways.

Personally, I believe that civil marriage is a joke. It has almost nothing in common with the sacrament of matrimony. It isn’t lifelong, it isn’t sacramental, and it isn’t open to life. So fussing about gay marriage is like shutting the barn door when the horse is gone. Kids are growing up by the millions in broken homes, and I just can’t see how two moms is worse than one mom, or no mom. Anyway, lots of gay people adopt or manage to conceive children … so refusing to let them get married is just making it that much easier to ditch the kids they committed to care for. I say let them get married and hold them to it!

But overall I think the government should stop calling that legal fiction it invented “marriage” and let churches decide. It is currently illegal for a priest to marry a couple that does not have a license … thus forcing illegal immigrants or very poor people to live in sin. I am strongly opposed to any government involvement in my sacraments, so I say civil unions for all, marriage for the churches.

But both my view and the OP’s view are permissible to hold for Catholics. You might disagree, you might have very good arguments why your view is better, but the point is one that it undefined by the Church. We have the freedom to come to our own conclusions on the matter. Doesn’t make any of us heretics.

 

[stewstew03]

…

But both my view and the OP’s view are permissible to hold for Catholics. You might disagree, you might have very good arguments why your view is better, but the point is one that it undefined by the Church. We have the freedom to come to our own conclusions on the matter. Doesn’t make any of us heretics.

How about… if you support gay marriage, you’re going against Church teaching.

Does that help?

.

 

[jmcrae]

It really bothers me that five pages worth of people were willing to say, categorically, that the OP is a heretic, but no one can actually cite a source for a doctrinal declaration which requires us to hold a particular political position on same sex marriage.

ONE person mentioned the CDF document, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons. What they didn’t mention is that it was not written by the Pope or a Council, and not definitively defined. So it ISN’T infallible.

That’s the only guidance we have, an advisory document by bishops. Nothing from the Pope. Nothing from the Councils. Nothing from Scripture.

We have literally tons of information about what marriage is, though - and there is nothing in the piles of information about what marriage is that mentions anything about the marriageability of homosexual couples - not a jot.

This would signify that the Church doesn’t approve of homosexual marriages. I don’t know how much clearer it would have to be, than to say that a marriage is the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, who are in their first marriage.

What a Catholic MUST believe is that homosexual activity is a mortal sin.

If homosexual activity is a mortal sin, then on what planet would marriage be the natural follow-up to such activity?

Our political opinions — i.e. how far the state must go to defend traditional marriage – are up for debate, and there are faithful Catholics who believe both ways.

If homosexual activity is a mortal sin, then how does it follow that we should encourage such activity in the public sphere?

Personally, I believe that civil marriage is a joke. It has almost nothing in common with the sacrament of matrimony. It isn’t lifelong, it isn’t sacramental, and it isn’t open to life.

The Church also forbids such marriages, and is called to discourage them in every way possible.