Is recognizing 2 men as a marriage at my job a sin?

[50yroldTOBfan]

What if a person had a religious belief that marriages didn’t exist and were total crock? (And yes, this is a real thing). If you called your insurance company and asked about spousal benefits for your wife and the person admonished you and said she was your girlfriend, how would you feel?

We are called to oppose same-sex marriage. But we are not required to make our opposition known to a gay person in a legal union every single time we talk to them.

No we’re not, and that’s not what I’m talking about.

I’m talking about situations where I am coerced to lie and go against my faith.

I am unaware of any religion that requires its adherents to deny that marriage exists. Please enlighten me if “this is a real thing”, and we can discuss it. But I have a feeing that you are blowing smoke here.

 

[50yroldTOBfan]

I understand your point - I just don’t think it will evangelize anyone. Rather to the contrary; it might put people even further off. I just speak to too many gay people who ask me why Catholics single them out, why Catholics seem to worry more about how other people live their lives, why Catholics seem to care more about their living arrangement than about them as people. I can virtually see their fear that I’m just yet another person who is out to disapprove of them once they realize I’m Catholic. This is a huge problem for the Church, and, to be honest, it is our fault. Not theirs.

Insisting on using what we see as correct terms (or rather, using terms the way we see as correct), only further perpetuates these misunderstandings. Which is why I think “sticking to principle” simply is counterproductive. It won’t bring one, single soul into the Church - and that should be our main priority.

Well, it is a difficult problem, no doubt about it. When some one is gay, they are probably not going to want to hear anybody say that gay sex is gravely displeasing to God. They’re not going to want to believe that, but we know it is true, it is part of our religion.

About 12 years ago I was attending (for a short time) a very liberal church in Seattle. I was in a group of about 20 people or so talking about gay issues in a church meeting room. I brought up the fact that we should offer something for gay people who were not sexually active, since that was so important in terms of church teaching. There was a girl there who was a lesbian and had just converted to Catholicism. She had just gone through RCIA and been baptized and confirmed. She piped up and asked “what is the actual church teaching on gay sex?”

There was a sort of awkward silence. She really didn’t know. And she had just been through RCIA.

Maybe that was just a freak occurrence in a very liberal place long ago. But you know what? I don’t think so. Just looking around this forum, I can see that many many Catholics simply have no clue.

Now if people INSIDE the church don’t get it, do you really think everybody else does? Maybe you’re right, but I don’t think so.

That girl I really felt sorry for, because she was duped, by omission. They probably just skipped it so she wouldn’t feel bad. But that’s wrong. Our religion teaches that gay sex is evil. That’s hard to hear for a gay person. But unless they know the truth, they can’t really come into the church in any authentic way.

 

[Rin]

I don’t want anybody to dislike me. I’m normal that way. But if I’m at a party or a friend’s house and they have home made pop-tarts from a recipe they invented themselves and are calling the tarts “eucharist”, I’m not going to go along with that, whether it hurts their feelings or not. I have some feelings too, and my faith is important to me. If they can’t figure out that calling their pop tarts “eucharist” is offensive to me, I can’t help it if they say their feelings are hurt because I don’t appreciate their baking.

The difference is, that by receiving an invalid imitation of the Eucharist, you excommunicate yourself. This is one of the few things where the other’s feelings don’t come into play - if I were to have to go to let’s say a child’s baptism (or perhaps dedication, as in the case of my niece), and the Protestant congregation celebrated the Last Supper, then I simply am not allowed to receive - I would incur excommunication. That does not happen by using the word “husband” about a gay partner; it doesn’t even happen by attending a gay marriage ceremony!

If you were not speaking of eating the tart, but just calling it “eucharist”, then your anology is, I’m sorry, lacking and unrealistic. Anyone who did this would do it as satire, and they would have ill intent. Not playing along with that would be okay, because they most probably did this to hurt you specifically, since you’re Catholic.

But gay couples who attain civil (or non-Catholic religious) marriage do not have ill intent. They have different beliefs, but not ill intent. They’re not trying to parody anything, and their act is not meant as satire. It means something to them, actually it means quite a lot. Hurting their feelings can’t be compared to refusing to call a pop tart “eucharist”.

It’s really the same thing with marriage. They are calling something evil the same name we use for a sacrament.

Except the eucharistic pop tart would clearly be intended as such, while gay weddings absolutely aren’t. This is what Catholics need to get into their heads - gay people don’t think “hey, let’s imitate the Catholic sacrament of Holy Matrimony”. They think “let’s spend the rest of our lives together”, and they want the legal framework to facilitate that without spending tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys.

If using one definition for husband in public and another in your heart and in your church works for you, then switch back and forth between the two definitions and keep your friends happy and maybe that’ll work for you.

But I simply can’t do that. It seems hypocritical.

It is charitable. I also address Anglican priests as “father” and Protestant pastors as “pastor”, even though I do not acknowledge the Anglican as neither priest nor father, and not the Protestant as pastor. I also speak of my grandfather’s second wife as “wife” even though she is not his wife, and I use the word “church” about the Lutheran state church in my country, even though I do not recognize them as such.

We do this all the time, because human interaction requires a certain amount of compromise and politeness. It is not hypocrisy, but essential charity and politeness.

 

[Rin]

Well, it is a difficult problem, no doubt about it. When some one is gay, they are probably not going to want to hear anybody say that gay sex is gravely displeasing to God. They’re not going to want to believe that, but we know it is true, it is part of our religion.

About 12 years ago I was attending (for a short time) a very liberal church in Seattle. I was in a group of about 20 people or so talking about gay issues in a church meeting room. I brought up the fact that we should offer something for gay people who were not sexually active, since that was so important in terms of church teaching. There was a girl there who was a lesbian and had just converted to Catholicism. She had just gone through RCIA and been baptized and confirmed. She piped up and asked “what is the actual church teaching on gay sex?”

There was a sort of awkward silence. She really didn’t know. And she had just been through RCIA.

Maybe that was just a freak occurrence in a very liberal place long ago. But you know what? I don’t think so. Just looking around this forum, I can see that many many Catholics simply have no clue.

Now if people INSIDE the church don’t get it, do you really think everybody else does? Maybe you’re right, but I don’t think so.

That girl I really felt sorry for, because she was duped, by omission. They probably just skipped it so she wouldn’t feel bad. But that’s wrong. Our religion teaches that gay sex is evil. That’s hard to hear for a gay person. But unless they know the truth, they can’t really come into the church in any authentic way.

I can only say that your story sounds odd, but obviously, it can happen - but it is still anecdotal and in my opinion an oddity.

However, living in a country with less than five percent (probably closer to two) Catholics, the only thing people seem to know about the Church is (a caricature of) our teaching on homosexual acts and marriage! So I say there’s generally not a need to inform people. If anything they should be informed that no, it is not a sin to be gay according to the Church, and that, even more importantly, God loves them for who they are. In addition, we need to offer them a more realistic solution than solitude and prayer (while being barred from entering religious life…), but I’m afraid that would constitute derailing of threads

 

[50yroldTOBfan]

But gay couples who attain civil (or non-Catholic religious) marriage do not have ill intent. They have different beliefs, but not ill intent. They’re not trying to parody anything, and their act is not meant as satire. It means something to them, actually it means quite a lot. Hurting their feelings can’t be compared to refusing to call a pop tart “eucharist”.

I’m sure gay couples mean well. If they want to call their relationships marriage, I understand why they want to, but I never will. It equates marriage to an evil sexual relationship. It’s a hard choice, we all want to be liked, I understand that. And so does the gay community. That’s why they use this emotional coercion to get what they want. I know most regular gay people have not “masterminded” this approach nor do they have ill intent, they are simply going along with gay culture. I like gay people and always do my best to be kind. But I am not going to be manipulated to deny my faith that way. If that hurts their feelings, so be it, because my faith is more important than what they think of me.

 

[Rin]

I’m sure gay couples mean well. If they want to call their relationships marriage, I understand why they want to, but I never will. It equates marriage to an evil sexual relationship. It’s a hard choice, we all want to be liked, I understand that. And so does the gay community. That’s why they use this emotional coercion to get what they want. I know most regular gay people have not “masterminded” this approach nor do they have ill intent, they are simply going along with gay culture. I like gay people and always do my best to be kind. But I am not going to be manipulated to deny my faith that way. If that hurts their feelings, so be it, because my faith is more important than what they think of me.

It is not about wanting to be liked. Not at all. If I wanted to be liked, I would have made quite different choices in my life than I have. I would also hold rather different opinions than I do - I could probably make a conservative Catholic and a liberal gay person dislike me in one and the same sentence… Generally, sticking to one of the extremes is the best way to be liked.

It is about this (though perhaps not in its most obvious interpretation):

“But prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thess 5:21)

In this case: what does good? Further alienating people who may already have a strained relationship with the Church? Or making one, small, insignificant concession, which could make them realize that the Church is not about being against them?

And the other way around: What does most harm? The possibility that they might think that you as a person condone their living arrangement? Or the possibility that your refusal to use the legally correct terms drives them further away?

You are free to believe differently than me. The Church commands neither option. What I hope is that you seriously consider my recommendation - what you do is up to you.

 

[SMGS127]

No we’re not, and that’s not what I’m talking about.

I’m talking about situations where I am coerced to lie and go against my faith.

I am unaware of any religion that requires its adherents to deny that marriage exists. Please enlighten me if “this is a real thing”, and we can discuss it. But I have a feeing that you are blowing smoke here.

Atheism is the obvious example of a religion that believes that marriage is completely a social construct. The LDS Church considers a non-Mormon marriage to be a different kind of marriage entirely than a Mormon marriage. Deism believes marriage is a private matter and a social contract/legal term.

But I was mainly thinking atheism. If an atheist believed that marriage was completely fake, why shouldn’t he have the same right to tell you off if you call your wife your wife? Why shouldn’t he have the right to tell you that your wife is just your girlfriend, with no risk of being fired?

It’s a politeness issue. Helping someone get an insurance policy for their legal partner is not the same as recognizing they have a Christian marriage.

 

[50yroldTOBfan]

But I was mainly thinking atheism. If an atheist believed that marriage was completely fake, why shouldn’t he have the same right to tell you off if you call your wife your wife? Why shouldn’t he have the right to tell you that your wife is just your girlfriend, with no risk of being fired?

Actually, I think he should have that right if it were truly a serious matter of conscience for him. But you know what? I have never heard of an atheist who denies the existence of marriage. Have you? I already asked you this previously, and you never answered. I think we both know this is a silly false scenario.

It’s a politeness issue. Helping someone get an insurance policy for their legal partner is not the same as recognizing they have a Christian marriage.

If it were a matter of small importance, then it would be a politeness issue. But it’s not a matter of small importance. That is why it is such a controversial issue.

You have made up a new word “Christian marriage”, which I did not use. I’m talking about marriage. The definition of the word marriage. Christian marriage can be a sacrament. But the sacrament builds on the natural reality, man and woman. The natural reality part is what is called “marriage”.

You cannot logically say you believe marriage means a good thing and is only man and woman when you are in church, but then it also means an evil thing, a homosexually active partnership, once you leave the church and go to work.

I don’t think people who do this are themselves evil, I think they are simply not thinking deeply and clearly on the subject, and they are going along with the culture, not their faith. If you use marriage in your daily life to refer to homosexual partnerships I have to conclude that you have somehow fallen into the thinking that marriage is not really very important, or that the word can be twisted to mean whatever you want depending on the situation. It’s understandable, given the strong force culture puts on homosexuality being a good thing. But it is hypocrisy. You have denied a key moral element of your faith for the sake of politeness.

 

[SMGS127]

Actually, I think he should have that right if it were truly a serious matter of conscience for him. But you know what? I have never heard of an atheist who denies the existence of marriage. Have you? I already asked you this previously, and you never answered. I think we both know this is a silly false scenario.

Actually, every single atheist I know denies the existence of marriage. You can’t have it both ways, defining marriage as legal in this case and Sacramental in others. It’s always Sacramental, and an atheist would vehemently deny the existence of your Sacramental marital bond.

You have made up a new word “Christian marriage”, which I did not use. I’m talking about marriage. The definition of the word marriage. Christian marriage can be a sacrament. But the sacrament builds on the natural reality, man and woman. The natural reality part is what is called “marriage”.

Actually, legal marriage is not the same thing as Christian marriage at all. Legally, the government recognizes same-sex marriages, remarried non-widow(er)s, etc. These are not Christian marriages.

You cannot logically say you believe marriage means a good thing and is only man and woman when you are in church, but then it also means an evil thing, a homosexually active partnership, once you leave the church and go to work.

I’m not sure what a “homosexually active partnership” is, but I can completely honestly say that I think the government has defined marriage as “any two people entering into a lifelong commitment,” whereas the Church defines it much more specifically. Yes, the legal definition and Church definition are different, which is why it’s stupid that the government uses the term “marriage.”

I don’t think people who do this are themselves evil, I think they are simply not thinking deeply and clearly on the subject, and they are going along with the culture, not their faith. If you use marriage in your daily life to refer to homosexual partnerships I have to conclude that you have somehow fallen into the thinking that marriage is not really very important, or that the word can be twisted to mean whatever you want depending on the situation. It’s understandable, given the strong force culture puts on homosexuality being a good thing. But it is hypocrisy. You have denied a key moral element of your faith for the sake of politeness.

No, I would never recognize two men or women to be in a Sacramental marriage. I also have refused to attend same-sex weddings. But you know what? A same-sex wedding is merely a commitment ceremony. An opposite-sex wedding between two consenting people capable of entering into marriage is a valid marriage and potentially a Sacramental marriage.

I merely recognize that the government uses its own definition of the term “marriage.” If I were talking to a gay or lesbian Catholic who described their marriage as Sacramental (or valid), I would correct them. Opposing legal same-sex marriage on the basis that marriage should be reserved for specific partnerships does not require a denial that the government uses a different definition for the term.

 

[50yroldTOBfan]

Actually, every single atheist I know denies the existence of marriage. You can’t have it both ways, defining marriage as legal in this case and Sacramental in others. It’s always Sacramental, and an atheist would vehemently deny the existence of your Sacramental marital bond.

Well, marriage is not always sacramental. And before 2003, civil marriage everywhere in the US simply meant husband and wife, man and woman. It described an observable reality, 2 people of opposite sexes in a specific type of relationship together. The gender of each person is an observable reality. Now to say that 2 people of the same gender is the same as 2 people of opposite genders is logically irrational.

Your atheist friends have the right to pretend marriage doesn’t exist. I’m curious though: what do they call it when a man and woman get married and start having kids together? They must have a word for this phenomena, right? I’m sorry, I don’t mean to insult you but I still cannot believe you are serious about that, that atheists deny the existence of marriage, natural marriage, husband and wife. I have never in my life heard of this.

Actually, legal marriage is not the same thing as Christian marriage at all. Legally, the government recognizes same-sex marriages, remarried non-widow(er)s, etc. These are not Christian marriages.

But what does “marriage” mean, without the adjectives? You seem to be saying that marriage simply means “two people who are in a relationship”. I can’t go along with that because, logically speaking, that equates 2 men to be the same thing as husband and wife, and I don’t think that’s the case. I’m not talking on the religious level. I’m talking at the level of what we both see with our eyes: 2 men is not the same thing as man and woman, even at the secular level. I’m talking about calling it as we see it. Nothing could be more obvious, but now these new laws are saying we have to treat them as if they are the same thing.

 

[50yroldTOBfan]

I’m not sure what a “homosexually active partnership” is, but I can completely honestly say that I think the government has defined marriage as “any two people entering into a lifelong commitment,” whereas the Church defines it much more specifically. Yes, the legal definition and Church definition are different, which is why it’s stupid that the government uses the term “marriage.”

When you say “the government has defined marriage”, what does that really mean?

Surely you know that most states currently still define marriage as man-woman only, right? It may seem like a matter of time, and it may in fact only be a matter of time, but only time will tell for sure, and at the present time “the government” is in disarray and inconsistent depending on which state you are in.

And who exactly is “the government”? Are not the people the government? Or maybe it is more accurate to say the government represents the people?

So if roughly half the population still defines and thinks of marriage as man-woman only, how can people just go along in blind obediance as “the government” now all of a sudden requires everybody to abide by a new definition that only about half of the people really believe is true?

I know most people probably will go along. I guess I just can’t believe my eyes that people are so … passive and docile. They’re docile to peer pressure, docile to the government, but not docile to the teachings of the church on marriage, or even their own common sense. It’s sad really. The good news is at least one person isn’t going along with it: me. I never thought of myself as a rebel, but I guess I’m becoming one.

I could see pushing for “civil unions” or whatever new legal term you might want to call homosexual partnerships. Frankly, I would still oppose that, but if it was enacted against my wishes I would have no problem recognizing that in the work place.

The problem I have is in calling them marriages. I know you are trying to pretend we can use the same word to mean two different things, marriage in the church and marriage in everyday life. But I just can’t do that. It seems irrational to me. And it does seem hypocritical too. I think we’re afraid to stand up for what we really believe, and understandably so: opposing homosexualized marriage laws is treated as if it is racism and you are hated for that if you voice that belief.

I hope you will at least understand what it is I am objecting to, even if you don’t agree: It’s not that I am insisting that secular society use some religious definition of the word marriage. I am saying that we are all forced to pretend, in various day to day affairs at work or school, if we adopt this new definition of marriage, that 2 men are the same thing as husband and wife. It’s not a religion thing. It’s a reality thing. A day to day reality. It’s like having a law saying red is still red, but it can also mean “green” sometimes. And if you don’t go along with that, well, you have that right. But we might fire you for it. No pressure.

No, I would never recognize two men or women to be in a Sacramental marriage. I also have refused to attend same-sex weddings. But you know what? A same-sex wedding is merely a commitment ceremony. An opposite-sex wedding between two consenting people capable of entering into marriage is a valid marriage and potentially a Sacramental marriage.

If it’s “merely a commitment ceremony”, why do they call it a marriage? The only logical explanation I can see is that they have radically changed the definition of the word, and I can’t concede that. Because then there will be no word to refer to what I think is a marriage, the unique relationship that is man-woman. It’s too important to muddy up the language with such an obvious logical inconsistency. You may be ok with it. I’m not and never will be.

I merely recognize that the government uses its own definition of the term “marriage.” If I were talking to a gay or lesbian Catholic who described their marriage as Sacramental (or valid), I would correct them. Opposing legal same-sex marriage on the basis that marriage should be reserved for specific partnerships does not require a denial that the government uses a different definition for the term.

Again, “the government” is not some divine entity, the government, at least in the US, is supposed to be the people, and the people are not unanimous on this, not yet anyway. So it’s not a denial that the government uses a different definition, it’s a flat-out refusal to accept a forced redefinition of the word “marriage”, which is central to everyday society even in the secular realm.