Let's STOP gay marriage now!

[gianfranco]

Or it shows that Catholics are not as committed to the truth of Gods word as our fellow Evangelical Protestants,why not

Perhaps because the Catholic Church has capitulated on too many issues, if not in actual practice then in theory and words (or silences)?

Or maybe because same sex marriage’s greatest spokesman and advocate for 2 decades considers himself a devout Catholic (Andrew Sullivan) and has encouraged other Catholics to view same sex marriage as an essential part of the Church…Ideas have a way of spreading and penetrating without our being aware that this is occurring, until we come to see the end result.

Here is one example among many re Sullivan:

Andrew Sullivan: If Catholics Can Accept Divorce, They Should Accept Gay Marriage

“I would say the religious arguments are more based in fear than in the actual teachings, that they’re based upon stray texts that actually don’t mean what you think they mean and that Jesus himself only said one thing about marriage, which is that you can’t divorce,” he said. “And we live in a country where countless people are divorced. And that doesn’t seem to threaten the religious liberty of Catholics. And it’s as fundamental an issue.”

“If Catholics can live with religious liberty with divorced people, they should be perfectly able to live with gay people, I mean, as married, as a civil marriage,” Sullivan said.

huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/01/andrew-sullivan_n_3530159.html

 

[DAML72]

“Conform to Catholicism”? Do you really think the Catholic Church is the only entity that sees no-fault divorce for the disaster that it is? There are a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with Christianity for thinking no-fault divorce was a bad idea.

If a business contract had a no-fault escape clause such that one party to the contract could walk out on the other for no reason other than they didn’t want to be a party to the contract any more, including the truth that they had found a new partner they thought would be more advantageous to them personally, what kind of contract would that be?

As for the charge of hypocrisy, how are you managing in your quest to take on all the evils and follies of the world simultaneously?

Wow! I suggest you calm down a little bit. I think you missed my point. I don’t think that the Catholic Church is the only entity that sees no-fault divorce as a disaster. I’ve lived it - it’s an evil. What I am saying is that the Church and OP are relatively silent on that issue, which I feel is a much bigger one than gay marriage. It’s hypocritical, I feel, for our Bishops to be so outspoken about gay marriage, yet they say NOTHING - absolutely NOTHING about no-fault divorce. I’m sorry, but it’s a bunch of bull. Civil marriage in this country is dead - it died a long time ago long before gay marriage became a reality. Let’s move on and figure out how we, as Catholics or Christians can change the dialogue and promote healthy families. But targeting same sex couples who wish to avail themselves of the benefits of a civil union is not the way to do it.

 

[JimG]

Wow! I suggest you calm down a little bit. I think you missed my point. I don’t think that the Catholic Church is the only entity that sees no-fault divorce as a disaster. I’ve lived it - it’s an evil. What I am saying is that the Church and OP are relatively silent on that issue, which I feel is a much bigger one than gay marriage. It’s hypocritical, I feel, for our Bishops to be so outspoken about gay marriage, yet they say NOTHING - absolutely NOTHING about no-fault divorce. I’m sorry, but it’s a bunch of bull. Civil marriage in this country is dead - it died a long time ago long before gay marriage became a reality. Let’s move on and figure out how we, as Catholics or Christians can change the dialogue and promote healthy families. But targeting same sex couples who wish to avail themselves of the benefits of a civil union is not the way to do it.

Well, I can sort of agree with you there. Gay marriage was never a possibility as long as real marriage survived; it had to be killed off first. I’m just not comfortable with the idea of now using gay marriage, the final contradiction to the meaning of marriage, as the means to bury the institution for good. “It’s dead. Let’s just bury it and move on.” Is that the idea?

 

[DAML72]

There’s absolutely no reason for the Catholic Church to oppose same-sex marriage, as long as – as at least one poster already said – it is limited to a civil issue and no laws are passed requiring the church to perform such marriages.

Marriage, from a civil perspective, is a simple two-party legal contract. It’s a combining of fortunes (or debts, in some cases ) and legal responsibilities. It confers various rights regarding inheritance, health care decisions, etc. that do not otherwise exist.

It has nothing to do with children, sex, even living together (keep in mind I’m talking about civil marriage here – the kind you get from filing your marriage license – not religious marriage). And marriage, in that respect, has nothing to do with religion or the lack thereof.

Last I checked, there is nothing in church doctrine that says two men can’t share financial responsibilities. Or that one woman can’t leave her belongings to one another. There isn’t even anything saying two people of the same sex can’t live together, or can’t be attracted to each other even, as long as they don’t act on it.

Jesus said give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. The right for any two competent adults to enter into a legal contract with one another is Caesar’s.

Bingo!

 

[DAML72]

Well, I can sort of agree with you there. Gay marriage was never a possibility as long as real marriage survived; it had to be killed off first. I’m just not comfortable with the idea of now using gay marriage, the final contradiction to the meaning of marriage, as the means to bury the institution for good. “It’s dead. Let’s just bury it and move on.” Is that the idea?

No. Absolutely not. We need to change hearts and minds. We need to show people why marriage and family are the foundation of society. What I am saying is that this will not be accomplished by eliminating same sex marriage. At this point, it’s not going to be done through legislation. We need a fundamental shift back to traditional values, but the Church is not going to effect that change unless and until it finds a way to reach people on an intellectual, emotional, and scientific level. We need a campaign FOR traditional families, authentic fatherhood, etc., At this point, fighting same sex marriage seems a bit like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

 

[gianfranco]

No. Absolutely not. We need to change hearts and minds. We need to show people why marriage and family are the foundation of society. What I am saying is that this will not be accomplished by eliminating same sex marriage. At this point, it’s not going to be done through legislation. We need a fundamental shift back to traditional values, but the Church is not going to effect that change unless and until it finds a way to reach people on an intellectual, emotional, and scientific level. We need a campaign FOR traditional families, authentic fatherhood, etc., At this point, fighting same sex marriage seems a bit like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

All of this is true as far as it goes. Traditional marriage had to decline via no-fault divorce and other evils before same-sex marriage could even begin to be viewed as a possibility. You are correct in saying that the fight against SSM seems like so much busy work as the ship sinks.

On the other hand, since gay marriage seems to be an end point, to reverse the end point would logically lead to other reversals (no-fault divorce, assisted reproduction, cohabitation) so maybe it is a valid place to begin; especially since it is so visible in the media.

If not, then what do you propose for making traditional marriage, families, and classical social values (which post-feminism has even more motive to leave behind than gay advocacy) respected again in a real way? Where would the starting point be?

 

[Joe_5859]

Wow! I suggest you calm down a little bit. I think you missed my point. I don’t think that the Catholic Church is the only entity that sees no-fault divorce as a disaster. I’ve lived it - it’s an evil. What I am saying is that the Church and OP are relatively silent on that issue, which I feel is a much bigger one than gay marriage. It’s hypocritical, I feel, for our Bishops to be so outspoken about gay marriage, yet they say NOTHING - absolutely NOTHING about no-fault divorce. I’m sorry, but it’s a bunch of bull. Civil marriage in this country is dead - it died a long time ago long before gay marriage became a reality. Let’s move on and figure out how we, as Catholics or Christians can change the dialogue and promote healthy families. But targeting same sex couples who wish to avail themselves of the benefits of a civil union is not the way to do it.

If you think the bishops haven’t been saying anything about no-fault divorce, then you haven’t been paying very close attention to the bishops.

Simply because we see more newspaper headlines when a bishop speaks out against homosexuality doesn’t mean that they talk about it more often. Just look at the most recent document from the USCCB on Marriage. They spend more time talking about divorce than homosexuality.

This isn’t a fight that the Church has chosen. We are not “targeting” homosexuals. But simply because marriage in recent years has been undermined in one way (“no-fault” divorce) does not mean that we just toss up our hands and allow marriage to be undermined in other ways (“gay marriage”). We fight to uphold what marriage is. We are not going to be successful in doing so if we turn a blind eye to definitions of marriage that are untrue (whether it is threats from no-fault divorce or gay marriage).

And, again, we are not out to get gay people or take away their happiness. It’s not about vindictive Christians trying to squelch people’s love. It’s about upholding the only institution that unites children to their mom and dad.

Further (because I might as well keep going ), I refuse to accept arguments from historical inevitability. Yes, things are moving in the direction of wider recognition for “gay marriage”. But no social movement is inevitable. Conversion is always possible. We do not give up just because it seems the cards are stacked against us (and they are). With God, all things are possible.

 

[gianfranco]

Just some thoughts:

Traditional marriage and family values within a culture presuppose certain concepts (they have in the past, and they will in any future come-back):

• That marriage and family is something you enter into when young, and that it is a permanent union, based on biology (not sperm/egg donors and surrogacy) and tradition. Feminism is a huge enemy of this, pushing single parenthood, hiring surrogates at 44, as freedom of choice, etc.
• That the genders are complementary, and play different roles. The careerism of feminism is definitely against this concept.
• That the teleology of mankind’s sexuality is spiritual union and the passing of generations, and not threesomes, sex-toys, serial partners, etc.All values of the post-feminist ‘Will and Grace’ culture.

Most of the above implies God and Natural Law theory.

So if same-sex marriage is just a late addition to the post-feminist buffet, what is to be done about truly turning back the clock to a traditional-values culture?

 

[EasterJoy]

Wow! I suggest you calm down a little bit. I think you missed my point. I don’t think that the Catholic Church is the only entity that sees no-fault divorce as a disaster. I’ve lived it - it’s an evil. What I am saying is that the Church and OP are relatively silent on that issue, which I feel is a much bigger one than gay marriage. It’s hypocritical, I feel, for our Bishops to be so outspoken about gay marriage, yet they say NOTHING - absolutely NOTHING about no-fault divorce. I’m sorry, but it’s a bunch of bull. Civil marriage in this country is dead - it died a long time ago long before gay marriage became a reality. Let’s move on and figure out how we, as Catholics or Christians can change the dialogue and promote healthy families. But targeting same sex couples who wish to avail themselves of the benefits of a civil union is not the way to do it.

Well, they haven’t been silent. They’ve been ignored.

But no, no-fault divorce is not a bigger issue than gay marriage. Civil divorce can be morally permissible as a way to divide assets justly when there is a legitimate separation of spouses.

To extend the benefits of marriage to those incapable of marriage misrepresents what marriage is and why society benefits from it over and above other arrangements of mutual care between adults in the first place. It promotes out-of-wedlock sexual consort and the “production” of children conceived *with the intention *of raising them away from at least one biological parent at the same time as it promotes the false idea that childbearing and marriage have no necessary connection. It furthers the idea of treating children as chattel, as a “thing” to be desired without regard to the needs of the child. It not only promotes illicit sexual relations, but raises them to the same status and dignity as sexual relations which are fecund and according to the natural design of the human body. No-fault divorce provides a near occasion of sin, and a serious one, but the approximation of marriage by same-sex couples enshrines sin and elevates it as if it were a virtue.

 

[EasterJoy]

There’s absolutely no reason for the Catholic Church to oppose same-sex marriage, as long as – as at least one poster already said – it is limited to a civil issue and no laws are passed requiring the church to perform such marriages.

Marriage, from a civil perspective, is a simple two-party legal contract. It’s a combining of fortunes (or debts, in some cases ) and legal responsibilities. It confers various rights regarding inheritance, health care decisions, etc. that do not otherwise exist.

It has nothing to do with children, sex, even living together (keep in mind I’m talking about civil marriage here – the kind you get from filing your marriage license – not religious marriage). And marriage, in that respect, has nothing to do with religion or the lack thereof.

Last I checked, there is nothing in church doctrine that says two men can’t share financial responsibilities. Or that one woman can’t leave her belongings to one another. There isn’t even anything saying two people of the same sex can’t live together, or can’t be attracted to each other even, as long as they don’t act on it.

Jesus said give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. The right for any two competent adults to enter into a legal contract with one another is Caesar’s.

Bingo!

This is how far-gone we are–that is, that we think natural marriage is nothing more than business contract that “has nothing to do with children, sex, even living together.” No, true natural marriage has a legitimate and even foundational value to society, even marriage that is not sacramental! It is not in the best interest of either religion or secular society to abolish it.

Again: When the Catholic hierarchy in Oregon agreed that adults in situations of mutual care not capable of marriage might legitimately benefit from an easy way to establish a legal relationship with some of the legal benefits already extended to married couples, the gay activists wanted no part of it. They wanted “civil unions” to be about giving legal recognition to a sexual relationship, not a mere relationship of mutual care. That told me everything about what their true agenda was, and it wasn’t about loving and caring for each other in peace. They didn’t want that on their bandwagon.

 

[EasterJoy]

All of this is true as far as it goes. Traditional marriage had to decline via no-fault divorce and other evils before same-sex marriage could even begin to be viewed as a possibility. You are correct in saying that the fight against SSM seems like so much busy work as the ship sinks.

On the other hand, since gay marriage seems to be an end point, to reverse the end point would logically lead to other reversals (no-fault divorce, assisted reproduction, cohabitation) so maybe it is a valid place to begin; especially since it is so visible in the media.

If not, then what do you propose for making traditional marriage, families, and classical social values (which post-feminism has even more motive to leave behind than gay advocacy) respected again in a real way? Where would the starting point be?

Natural marriage will exist for as long as the human race does. It is protection for its dignity and recognition of its worth that is sinking.

If we all of a sudden saw that society as a whole had lost all recognition of the dignity of all persons, regardless of skin color, would we say that the dignity of whatever skin color was out of vogue with the ruling elite was “a sinking ship”? No, those persons would have the same dignity as they ever had. It would be defense of their natural rights and status that were sinking, not the right those things had to a defense and to their status. The worth of the person would endure, even if neglected and forgotten. Just so, even if the worth of faithful and chaste natural marriages are forgotten, neglected, and maligned, their true worth will endure.

 

[EasterJoy]

All of this is true as far as it goes. Traditional marriage had to decline via no-fault divorce and other evils before same-sex marriage could even begin to be viewed as a possibility. You are correct in saying that the fight against SSM seems like so much busy work as the ship sinks.

On the other hand, since gay marriage seems to be an end point, to reverse the end point would logically lead to other reversals (no-fault divorce, assisted reproduction, cohabitation) so maybe it is a valid place to begin; especially since it is so visible in the media.

If not, then what do you propose for making traditional marriage, families, and classical social values (which post-feminism has even more motive to leave behind than gay advocacy) respected again in a real way? Where would the starting point be?

Why would you think same-sex marriage is an end-point? I think the willingness to redefine marriage to suit the opinion of the current age is a beginning point, and a very bad one, at that. The more marriage is twisted away from its true identity, the more vulnerable it is to being eradicated as a protected or encouraged institution and the more vulnerable true marriage is to lose its identity entirely. We might see marriage “left to its own devices” and taken out from the protection of civil law in our lifetimes.

 

[gianfranco]

Natural marriage will exist for as long as the human race does. It is protection for its dignity and recognition of its worth that is sinking.

If we all of a sudden saw that society as a whole had lost all recognition of the dignity of all persons, regardless of skin color, would we say that the dignity of whatever skin color was out of vogue with the ruling elite was “a sinking ship”? No, those persons would have the same dignity as they ever had. It would be defense of their natural rights and status that were sinking, not the right those things had to a defense and to their status. The worth of the person would endure, even if neglected and forgotten. Just so, even if the worth of faithful and chaste natural marriages are forgotten, neglected, and maligned, their true worth will endure.

I concur, and what you say is the absolute truth. The ideals of modesty, chastity, fidelity, loyalty are as true and strong as ever, even though they have been eclipsed in our current culture.

However, this eclipse is a very bad thing for children and for future generations, and has all kinds of evil effects on their development and is a self-perpetuating and snowballing evil. I know from my own upbringing decades ago, that good and worthy concepts which were lived and thriving had a good effect on my own and others’ development, and that the entrance of chaos and relativism and disorder had pernicious effects and consequences.

Ergo, we all of us have an interest in making the culture a safe place in which to grow. So how is this to be aimed at?

 

[gianfranco]

Why would you think same-sex marriage is an end-point? I think the willingness to redefine marriage to suit the opinion of the current age is a beginning point, and a very bad one, at that. The more marriage is twisted away from its true identity, the more vulnerable it is to being eradicated as a protected or encouraged institution and the more vulnerable true marriage is to lose its identity entirely. We might see marriage “left to its own devices” and taken out from the protection of civil law in our lifetimes.

If same sex marriage is not the end point - the last consequence we are seeing from a deterioration of standards which began publicly in the late 1960s - then what is right now? Where is the end of the thread to be picked up, to your thinking?

In any case to call SSM a beginning point is to miss what abortion, no-fault divorce, feminism , day care culture did to bring us to this current point…

 

[WilT]

Homosexuality is a condition. Homosexual acts are a sin. It isn’t up for a vote. If you have a moral code that* is *up for a vote and standards that vary with the political wind, heaven help you.

Homosexual relations are not based on love, but on sexual license. The idea of marriage for persons of the same sex is a deception that uses durable filial affection–a good thing!–and uses it as an excuse for becoming comfortable in immoral license. It is despair of self-control, masquerading as an awakening, an expression of “true self.” May heaven pardon those who have misled so many on this point. There are many people whose integrity would not have given themselves over to this lie, if they had not been so convincingly misled by others trying to justify their own self-deception by achievement of a quorum of agreement.

License destroyed many civilizations before ours. If things continue as you predict, not only in the area of sexuality but in all the other areas where license has the final say in our law and culture, then our civilization is going to implode.

The difference between your extrapolation of present into future and mine is that mine has precedents, whereas yours does not. Not many civilizations have ever pulled themselves out of the spiral ours seems to be in. Still, we have been known to have moral re-awakenings, so perhaps we will again.

Strong arguments EasterJoy:thumbsup:

 

[WilT]

Civil marriage civilizes and protects a natural good that exists in human biology and indeed makes the continuation of the race possible. If someone were to have DNA that encoded some different kind of relationship, that relationship would not be that same natural good.

 

[WilT]

Ability to consummate is necessary to contract a valid marriage. But Catholicism does not teach that sexual love is the only true love or the best kind of love. It is important, yes, but it is not necessary to live a holy and fulfilling life. Inability to marry does not mean a person has failed at life.

Our society puts way too much emphasis on sexual pleasure as the pinnacle of human freedom and experience. It is not. It is very important in the marital relationship - St. John Paul II has some great things to say about it - but it is not necessary for all.

The reality is that we are fallen and we are subject to various vices and disordered tendencies - all of us. In some societies certain disordered tendencies, for whatever reason, become elevated as good. It hasn’t always been sex. IIRC in ancient Rome there were specific places a person could go to eat so much extra food they had to throw it up.

 

[WilT]

“Love” is not the issue. The issue is that it is not the natural order of things for two men or two women to perform sexual acts on each other. They cannot complete the marital act. It is impossible. They may deeply care for each other, but the love they have is not marital, because it is not conjugal. That is what we mean when we say “intrinsically disordered.” It is contrary to the purpose of the sexual organs to use them in the only way that two men and two women can use them with each other. (This also explains the rest of Catholic teaching on sexuality - why contraception, abortion, fornication, and adultery are wrong - sexuality is designed to promulgate the species, and it is immoral to use the sexual organs for purposes they are not designed for. Just like it’s immoral to overindulge in food, alcohol, or other substances. It is contrary to their nature.)

 

[WilT]

I don’t question that most gay couples truly love each other. But your argument seems to rest on the premise that any two people who love each other should be able to marry each other. I would disagree with that premise, and I would ask how you arrive at that premise?

And does this mean that you also would support marriage between close relatives (e.g., brother/sister, uncle/niece, father/daughter, etc.) as long as they love each other? Does it mean that you would support group marriages consisting of three or more people, if the prerequisite love is there?

Or what if a couple has a non-sexual type of love – can they marry? For example, if two straight male best friends wish to share a house and share expenses, can they get married to each other simply for legal/financial purposes?

Or what if two people wish to marry each other, but they don’t love each other? Should they be able to marry, in your view?

 

[WilT]

Homosexuality is a condition. Homosexual acts are a sin. It isn’t up for a vote. If you have a moral code that* is *up for a vote and standards that vary with the political wind, heaven help you.

Homosexual relations are not based on love, but on sexual license. The idea of marriage for persons of the same sex is a deception that uses durable filial affection–a good thing!–and uses it as an excuse for becoming comfortable in immoral license. It is despair of self-control, masquerading as an awakening, an expression of “true self.” May heaven pardon those who have misled so many on this point. There are many people whose integrity would not have given themselves over to this lie, if they had not been so convincingly misled by others trying to justify their own self-deception by achievement of a quorum of agreement.

License destroyed many civilizations before ours. If things continue as you predict, not only in the area of sexuality but in all the other areas where license has the final say in our law and culture, then our civilization is going to implode.

The difference between your extrapolation of present into future and mine is that mine has precedents, whereas yours does not. Not many civilizations have ever pulled themselves out of the spiral ours seems to be in. Still, we have been known to have moral re-awakenings, so perhaps we will again.