Lesbian "marriage"

[chrysostim83]

OK, I’m going back on my word and making this my last post.

If it is arrogant to “teach others”, you placed no qualifier on that as being “continual” or once in a while. What you wrote is called a straw man argument.

Also, if you truly plan to go "to the reception, don’t sign the registry, don’t drink, and don’t clap for the newly “weds”, then why in the world are you there? Are you supporting them? If someone walks up to you and says, “Isn’t this great?”, how will you respond? Are you comfortable with the occassion of scandal when others see you at the reception?

Let us say receptions after an abortion were customary. Would you be equally fine attending that?

I outlined a case where teaching is an expression of arrogance, and I left it to you to complete the guilt-by-association move—you’re normally so good at that!—which would prove my thesis. Of course, my thesis is imprecise: we clearly have a duty to teach in the sense of disseminating the Word of Truth, but when excessive zeal overwhelms prudence (which is typically the case in these same-sex issues) the result looks an awful lot like arrogance.

Exactly how stupid would someone have to be not to know that the Church disapproves of homosexual acts and gay “marriage?” Would they be in a vegetative state, or could they actually function a little, do you think? And yet you are worried about scandal! If the “wedding” guests know you’re a devout Catholic, then they should surmise that you are there to support your party to the “wedding” without approving of the party’s choice. If they do not know you’re Catholic, then there’s no harm done. Most outsiders don’t know much about dissent in the Catholic Church.

Finally, let me try to clarify my thought on this issue one last time:
(1) A polite refusal is generally the way to go. If your absence would not be source of great distress to either party to the “wedding,” then stay away.
(2) In the handful of cases left, you may attend the reception in a sort of non-celebratory way (skip the ceremony, refrain from drink, avoid expressions of approval) provided that this is acceptable to everyone.
(3) Under no circumstances is it permissible to attend the ceremony itself.

The few cases I’m talking about may seem to involve an impossible compromise—I guess that would have to be worked out on an individual basis. It would be interesting to get some feedback from people who have tried to make this compromise work, or who rejected the possibility of doing so, and how either one of these options affected their relationships with the people involved.

 

[Awful_Things]

I’ve got no objection with this. All I’m saying is that not attending can send a message saying “what you’re doing is unworthy of support”. People tend to take things like that personally when it comes from someone close to them.

Agreed.

I didn’t say anything about the wedding guests. I referred only to the couple. I know there can be exceptions, but usually when someone invites you to their wedding, it’s because of the relationship that you have with them.

Agreed.

I personally feel that what bystanders think, whether they’re wedding guests or members of one’s congregation, is secondary; you’re free to feel differently.

I would tend to agree. What God thinks is primary.

I don’t really care whether I’m “christlike” or not. I go by what I think is right, not by what Jesus did. Sometimes the two are different things.

And you’ve also made it clear that you are not Catholic (or at least fully Catholic in doctrine), but the OP phrased this in the context of her Catholic beliefs, so the answers are based on that premise.

However, all this talk about being “christlike” has got me to thinking: I seem to have forgotten the verse in the Gospels where Jesus declines an invitation to a lesbian wedding. Could you remind me which one it is?

Never said he did, but he did refuse to further associate with individuals who refused to renounce their sins. Such is the case here.

Sexual abuse of children is worth speaking up about, whether it’s the law of the land or not. Calling the police is a handy way of putting the harm to an end.

Agreed. But why not “support the individuals”? The answer, of course, is hat you recognize that supporting individuals is really supporting their actions (as you agreed to earlier). To show up to “support a couple” at a reception is specifying which actions one supports. A Catholic cannot support immoral relationships, and so answers to the OP must be in that context.

If someone I know was a pedophile, then I wouldn’t want to support him. I wouldn’t care about the message that my non-attendance at the hypothetical pedophilia ceremony you’ve dreamed up.

Exactly, because you recognize that, aside from being illegal, pedophilia is also immoral. So, in the case of what one should do about a reception honoring an immoral act, you and I agree. You and I disagree on whether a homosexual relationship is immoral. However, understanding that the OP finds them immoral, your advice should (in theory) be the same as you would give to yourself in the pedophelia situation - Do not show support for an act that you find immoral and needlessly dangerous for anyone involved.

You’re halfway there. Why aren’t they against the law?

Simply because (in many cases) it is not the role of the state to legislate morality. However, we are talking about two laws here. My philosophy is simple:

Support, through legal action and correction, stopping those acts that are against civil law (pedophelia).
Support, through non-participation, prayer, and correction, stopping those acts that are against God’s law (pedophelia and homosexual behavior).

By trying to equate the two, you are taking me (and the OP into a context different from what she asked, which is how does a Catholic respond to a situation which is contrary to Catholic law.

 

[Califman831]

Its best to tell them the truth, that their marriage is abomination to God and you refuse to attend. God bless you for standing up to these people.

 

[crazzeto]

I don’t think there’s any “soft” way to deliver that kind of a response to someone who is a homosexual. So I would go along with most of the responses, if there is truely no way to simply just say “I won’t be attending” and just leave it at that, then I would be as breif and upfront about the reasoning as you can.

“Sorry, but due to my beliefs I can’t attend the ceramony”, or something along those lines. If you need to be more specific you might say “Sorry, but due to my support of the sactity of marriage I can’t attend” or something like that. Most importantly don’t beat around the bush, that always just magnifies the negative perception.

I might also suggest that before you deliver the response you take a time out to mentally prepare for the possiblity that they may choose to try and challenge your beliefs. If you want I guess you can just walk away from that challenge, but that would also leave a significantly bad negative impression. At the end of the day, we don’t oppose “gay marriage” because we “hate gays” because “the bible said so”. We don’t hate gays (or shouldn’t) but both Sacrade Tradition and Sacrade Scripture are abudently clear that homosexuality is, always will be and can never be anything but a sinful act. We can not endorse or worse yet, sactify sin.

Of course your forum post is just now making me realize that I might my self be facing this prospect some time in the future. My fiance’s brother is gay. Ugh, oh well.

 

[gearhead]

AAnd you’ve also made it clear that you are not Catholic (or at least fully Catholic in doctrine), but the OP phrased this in the context of her Catholic beliefs, so the answers are based on that premise.

I’m not Catholic at all, actually.

And presumably the lesbian couple getting married is almost certainly not Catholic, so when we consider how they would react to the OP’s actions, whatever she decides, a non-Catholic point of view is likely useful to consider as well.

Never said he did, but he did refuse to further associate with individuals who refused to renounce their sins. Such is the case here.

He also had strong words for people who worried about “sin” to the point that they ignored virtue.

Agreed. But why not “support the individuals”? The answer, of course, is hat you recognize that supporting individuals is really supporting their actions (as you agreed to earlier). To show up to “support a couple” at a reception is specifying which actions one supports. A Catholic cannot support immoral relationships, and so answers to the OP must be in that context.

Your analogy doesn’t work. Anyone who stood by and witnessed pedophilia and did nothing to stop it would IMO be guilty morally, if not in law. OTOH, as I mentioned before, I can attend Catholic mass with my wife as a gesture of support for my wife, not as a gesture of support for the Church.

Simply because (in many cases) it is not the role of the state to legislate morality.

Aww. You were so close.

You’re partly right, though: it’s not the role of the state to legislate based on morality; it’s the role of the state to legislate based on harm. Homosexual relationships aren’t illegal because they’re not harmful.

However, we are talking about two laws here. My philosophy is simple:

Support, through legal action and correction, stopping those acts that are against civil law (pedophelia).
Support, through non-participation, prayer, and correction, stopping those acts that are against God’s law (pedophelia and homosexual behavior).

By trying to equate the two, you are taking me (and the OP into a context different from what she asked, which is how does a Catholic respond to a situation which is contrary to Catholic law.

I’m not equating anything. You’re the one who brought up pedophilia.

 

[Awful_Things]

I’m not Catholic at all, actually.

And presumably the lesbian couple getting married is almost certainly not Catholic, so when we consider how they would react to the OP’s actions, whatever she decides, a non-Catholic point of view is likely useful to consider as well.

Useful to consider, but if their views allow them to marry, her views require her to stay home.

He also had strong words for people who worried about “sin” to the point that they ignored virtue.

Sure, but there is nothing vituous (that you’ve pointed out) about going, so those do not apply.

Your analogy doesn’t work. Anyone who stood by and witnessed pedophilia and did nothing to stop it would IMO be guilty morally, if not in law.

What if, as you pointed out, the pedophilic couple is also not Catholic, but of a faith that respected such early age marriages, such as fringe Mormons. Why the double-standard?

OTOH, as I mentioned before, I can attend Catholic mass with my wife as a gesture of support for my wife, not as a gesture of support for the Church.

You support your wife practicing her faith, right? Would you support her abusing one of your kids? No, so you wouldn’t stand by her in that. So, the analogy stands, because we support actions, not people (as you agreed).

Aww. You were so close.

You’re partly right, though: it’s not the role of the state to legislate based on morality; it’s the role of the state to legislate based on harm. Homosexual relationships aren’t illegal because they’re not harmful.

Many would disagree, as would some studies (there are many linked to in the CA tract on homosexuality). You are perfectly in your place to disagree with the findings, but many . People would also imply there is harm in many things that are not illegal and no harm that are in some things that are. If I’m only “so close” in my understanding of the foundation of law, please educate me to show where it is properly defined as you defined it.

I’m not equating anything. You’re the one who brought up pedophilia.

I agree, you aren’t equating anything. You’re picking and chosing from tantamount situations.

 

[fix]

• the only bases to declare same-sex marriage immoral are religious beliefs that I don’t personally believe are based in fact.
• without getting into issues I have with Catholic teachings that don’t relate directly to the mass, I find the idea of the sacrifice in the Eucharistic ceremony to be deeply immoral. It commemorates the placing of all the sins of the world on the only truly innocent person. This idea is fundamentally unjust; while Christ’s sacrifice can be seen as noble, the actions of a god who would demand that sacrifice are not.

However, maybe we should just leave it at that, since I don’t want to drag the thread off-topic. If you want to discuss this somewhere else, let me know.

• I’ve personally witnessed the love between a number of same-sex couples (as much as a person can witness the love between two other people, anyhow) - it’s as real, genuine and “ordered” as the love between opposite-sex couples.

I disagree.

 

[gearhead]

Useful to consider, but if their views allow them to marry, her views require her to stay home.

I’ll let the OP decide what her views are.

Sure, but there is nothing vituous (that you’ve pointed out) about going, so those do not apply.

Love is virtuous. There’s a passage in 1 Corinthians to that effect that’s often read at weddings.

What if, as you pointed out, the pedophilic couple is also not Catholic, but of a faith that respected such early age marriages, such as fringe Mormons. Why the double-standard?

What double standard? Pedophilia is a crime and a horrible act whether it’s done by Mormons, Catholics, atheists or anyone else. If it happened in my presence, I feel I’d have a duty to stop it… violently if necessary. It’s nothing

You support your wife practicing her faith, right?

I love her for who she is. She happens to be Catholic. If one day she decided that she didn’t want to be Catholic any more or that she didn’t believe in God, I’d be perfectly fine with that.

Would you support her abusing one of your kids? No, so you wouldn’t stand by her in that. So, the analogy stands, because we support actions, not people (as you agreed).

Well, I’ve conceded to letting her have our future children baptized, which while I don’t consider it abuse per se, I think it has intrinsically negative implications. As it stands now, I may even attend (edit: though it’s been a difficult issue for me. And I think that attending a baptism as a parent of the baptized infant carries with it an aspect of approval that isn’t present in mere attendance at a wedding)… though I absolutely do not support the action.

Many would disagree, as would some studies (there are many linked to in the CA tract on homosexuality). You are perfectly in your place to disagree with the findings, but many .

I wouldn’t call anything produced by NARTH and friends a “study”.

People would also imply there is harm in many things that are not illegal and no harm that are in some things that are.

BTW - I should probably clarify: I was specifically referring to criminal law. There are other aspects of law that aren’t based on harm - for example, there’s no intrinsic “harm” in a business selling sugar by volume instead of by weight, but it’s illegal to do so (at least here in Canada). Some laws are based on things like expediency, benefit or pragmatic concerns.

However, the law isn’t perfect. For instance, it can be slow to change. Sometimes it suffers from neglect. But in the case of homosexuality, it was prohibited as a crime in most western countries for ages. It’s not legal because nobody ever bothered to ban it (like bestiality in Florida, for instance); it’s not legal because someone just invented it and the law hasn’t had a chance to respond; it was made legal based on careful reflection of the facts involved.

If I’m only “so close” in my understanding of the foundation of law, please educate me to show where it is properly defined as you defined it.

Why? I don’t see the point, honestly.

I agree, you aren’t equating anything. You’re picking and chosing from tantamount situations.

Homosexuality isn’t tantamount to pedophilia. It’s rather offensive that you would suggest that they are.

I disagree.

And the lesbian couple probably disagrees with you.

 

[fix]

And the lesbian couple probably disagrees with you.

Then, they would be wrong.

 

[Awful_Things]

I’ll let the OP decide what her views are.

She did. Read her first post.

Love is virtuous. There’s a passage in 1 Corinthians to that effect that’s often read at weddings.

Love is virtuous, but not romantic love between members of the same sex. 1 Cor. doesn’t condone that anymore than “love” between a man and his eleven-year-old girlfriend. 1 Cor. explains what “love” is, but doesn’t give a blanket acceptance of all types of love (as some of it is disordered).

What double standard? Pedophilia is a crime and a horrible act whether it’s done by Mormons, Catholics, atheists or anyone else. If it happened in my presence, I feel I’d have a duty to stop it… violently if necessary.

It’s a double-standard because you’ve maintained that you can support the individuals without supporting the act, but you refuse to support two people you love who are in a pedophilic relationship without accepting the act. Double-standard.

I love her for who she is. She happens to be Catholic. If one day she decided that she didn’t want to be Catholic any more or that she didn’t believe in God, I’d be perfectly fine with that.

You avoided the point. Would you “support” your wife in an immoral act, such as beating your children? As you pointed out, baptism isn’t abuse, so please address that question.

Well, I’ve conceded to letting her have our future children baptized, which while I don’t consider it abuse per se, I think it has intrinsically negative implications. As it stands now, I may even attend (edit: though it’s been a difficult issue for me. And I think that attending a baptism as a parent of the baptized infant carries with it an aspect of approval that isn’t present in mere attendance at a wedding)… though I absolutely do not support the action.

Very noble.

I wouldn’t call anything produced by NARTH and friends a “study”.

This is typically called mudslinging. Again, you’ve avoided the point.

BTW - I should probably clarify: I was specifically referring to criminal law. There are other aspects of law that aren’t based on harm - for example, there’s no intrinsic “harm” in a business selling sugar by volume instead of by weight, but it’s illegal to do so (at least here in Canada). Some laws are based on things like expediency, benefit or pragmatic concerns.

Right, and God’s law is based on offense to him.

However, the law isn’t perfect.

God’s law is.

For instance, it can be slow to change. Sometimes it suffers from neglect. But in the case of homosexuality, it was prohibited as a crime in most western countries for ages. It’s not legal because nobody ever bothered to ban it (like bestiality in Florida, for instance); it’s not legal because someone just invented it and the law hasn’t had a chance to respond; it was made legal based on careful reflection of the facts involved.

That you would assume “careful reflection” applied in making it legal but not in originally making it illegal shows a bias, unless of course you have some facts to back up that assertion.

Why? I don’t see the point, honestly.

Because, for you to tell me I’m wrong, you should back it up with something. I’m asserting that you cannot. If you want to disguise that with a cavalier attitude, it wouldn’t be the first point you’ve avoided.

Homosexuality isn’t tantamount to pedophilia. It’s rather offensive that you would suggest that they are.

Legally, no. Morally, it sure is.

Unfortunately, I will be from my computer for several hours, so I won’t be able to respond until then. I hope you can answer the points you avoided in my earlier post, though.

 

[Gerard_Nadal]

---

I don’t see why it is so objectionable to attend, period. Do you shun lesbians because they are lesbians? Do you shun Muslims because they are Muslim? Do you shun adulterers, fornicators, and all other manner of sinner because they are a sinner?

You can attend the wedding without supporting the lifestyle the wedding is celebrating. It is the same as embracing the sinner without embracing the sin.

I don’t understand why a self-proclaimed Catholic would need to boycott such an event. Two people are celebrating their bond in the way they know how. Your husband wants to attend, and you are not willing to celebrate your own bond by being supportive of him and his friends by attending with him.

It sounds hypocritical.

**This is a joke, right? If one can attend a wedding without celebrating the lifestyle the wedding is celebrating, then why be there? We go to share in the couple’s joy, to witness the validity of the vows, to lend our support.

If you do not see all the difference in the world between sacramental marriage and the farcical mimicry in a lesbian wedding then you need some serious pastoral intervention.

As to the OP, simply regret the invitation. This is not the time or occasion to take a stand. It smacks of grandstanding and will rightly be seen as devoid of charity.**

 

[Califman831]

You also have to remember that this is not a valid wedding even if the couple are male/female because there is no Catholic priest administering the sacrament.

 

[VivienneJ]

You also have to remember that this is not a valid wedding even if the couple are male/female because there is no Catholic priest administering the sacrament.

As I understand what I’ve read on these forums, a male/female wedding that is not conducted by a Catholic priest is a valid wedding, but is not a sacramental marriage.

 

[gearhead]

As I understand what I’ve read on these forums, a male/female wedding that is not conducted by a Catholic priest is a valid wedding, but is not a sacramental marriage.

Apparently, sometimes a male/female wedding conducted by a Catholic priest isn’t a sacramental marriage either.

When I got married, the priest told us that because my wife is baptized and I’m not, the marriage would be a sacrament for her but not for me.