The problem is that I disagree with your premise that “civil marriage is in fact nothing more than a contract.” I think it is a whole lot more than that. And I suspect that there are quite a few non-Catholic or even non-religious married couples who would disagree with that premise too, at least as it applies to their own marriages.Catholic teaching says two homosexuals can’t have sex.
Catholic teaching says two homosexuals can’t have a valid marriage in the church.
Where does Catholic teaching say two homosexuals can’t enter into a legal contract?
Civil marriage and religious marriage are not the same thing. Civil marriage is in fact nothing more than a contract – which is why even Catholics can receive a civil divorce.
(emphasis mine)LOVE is EXACTLY the issue. So you are saying that there must be a penis and a vagina to “complete the marital act?” What about those born with both sex organs, or perhaps no sex organs? Then what?
I find it sad because by only talking about this on a biological level, we are indeed refusing to even accept or believe for just one second that Gay people are able to experience true love, romantic love, and sexual love. Because by believing that the latter two forms are sinful, evil and intrinsically disordered, one can’t possibly begin to accept the other opinion.
To support such an abomination or be okay with it happening regardless of what religion they are is still sin. same sex “marraige” is NEVER okay.So long as the state doesn’t try to force a priest to make a gay sacramental marriage I don’t know why one should be worried about the fact that two people made a civil contract between eachother…
Polygamy is still based on the union of a man and a woman – it is just allowing the same man to enter into two or more of those unions at the same time. The women are not married to each other in polygamous marriages; each woman is married only to the man. So, while I don’t approve of polygamy, I stand by my point from the same post that you quoted: “I’m not saying that every society, religion, or government agreed on every aspect of marriage. But they did all agree that it was the union of a man and a woman.”You are historically misinformed. Virtually all societies before the advent of Christianity practiced polygamy, rather than monogamy. Most societies (Including Jews) had marriages that were not regarded as permanent. In the 10,000 or so years of human civilization, one man, one women, indissoluble marriages are a relatively recent and short lived phenomenon.
Because marriage is between one man and one womanMy sister and her daughter have also been living together for 27 years. They love each other. They care for each other. They are not married to each other. I suppose they could demand marriage equality; it would be beneficial to file a joint tax return. But that’s not legal. Yet. Still, marriage equality is marriage equality. Why should we give it only to restricted categories, and not to others?
That bishop better take a good look on the catechism! to support evil is to do evilI guess I am confused by some of the replies to the OP.
My bishop speaks in favor of laws that define marriage as “one man, one woman” and encourages Catholics in our diocese to support such.
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
How is that bishop going against the Catechism, or supporting evil? Maybe you misread the original post that you were replying to?That bishop better take a good look on the catechism! to support evil is to do evil
I agree with you! I was making the point that if “marriage equality” as used by those supporting same sex marriage means anything, it should mean “marriage equality” for everybody: brother-sister, mom-son, mom-daughter, father-daughter, business partners, polygamists, and surely it will come to this–pederast and boy. I was pointing out the direction in which we are headed.Because marriage is between one man and one woman
OK, so lets start there. What intrinsic element of civil marriage is there that you feel would disqualify same-sex couples from being part of it?The problem is that I disagree with your premise that “civil marriage is in fact nothing more than a contract.” I think it is a whole lot more than that. And I suspect that there are quite a few non-Catholic or even non-religious would disagree with that premise too, at least as it applies to their own marriages.
Put simply, marriage (whether civil or religious) is the union of a man and a woman because the essential public purpose of marriage is to bind mothers and fathers to each other and to their children, for the good of families and for the good of society. And only a union of a man and a woman can lead to children. There is no such thing in nature as a child with two biological fathers, or two biological mothers, or any other combination of biological parents other than a mother and a father.OK, so lets start there. What intrinsic element of civil marriage is there that you feel would disqualify same-sex couples from being part of it?
OK, that’s valid. And obviously being open to children is part of the deal with Catholic weddings.Put simply, marriage (whether civil or religious) is the union of a man and a woman because the essential public purpose of marriage is to bind mothers and fathers to each other and to their children, for the good of families and for the good of society. And only a union of a man and a woman can lead to children. There is no such thing in nature as a child with two biological fathers, or two biological mothers, or any other combination of biological parents other than a mother and a
A better question is what civil marriage offers to the people not in it (society as a whole) that qualifies people in sexual consort for all the advantages that come with it. Why should this thing we call “civil marriage” have the least thing to do with whether or not two people who love each other are in a sexual relationship? Why should it be restricted to sexual partners at all? Why should people who have found someone for mutual care get extra benefits to encourage them to stay together for exactly as long as each of them are inclined to stay? Honestly, even contracts for business alliance have “non-compete” clauses that prevent someone from unilaterally breaking one alliance in order to immediately form another one that is seen as a bit more advantageous. Even someone who takes a tax write-off as a forest or a farm has to show that the property is actually in production that society wants to encourage over simple self-satisfaction. I am starting to wonder how long it will be before the single take a class-action lawsuit to court and ask for marriage to be either reassembled or else dismantled.OK, that’s valid. And obviously being open to children is part of the deal with Catholic weddings.
But wanting / having / being able to have children isn’t part of the requirements in a civil marriage. You get the same rights, tax breaks, etc. either way. And there are separate rights and tax breaks specifically for those who DO have children.
My point is, if we can have marriage perks without having or wanting kids, why should the inability to have kids stop them? Especially if they adopt – then they DO have kids but still get less protection than couples who don’t
What intrinsic element keeps me from being a woman?I know I have the genitalia of a man but if I really, really want to be considered a woman shouldn’t the Govt change the definition of woman to accommodate me?OK, so lets start there. What intrinsic element of civil marriage is there that you feel would disqualify same-sex couples from being part of it?
What intrinsic element of being a man or a woman makes gender relevant? Why is gender even a legal concept?What intrinsic element keeps me from being a woman?I know I have the genitalia of a man but if I really, really want to be considered a woman shouldn’t the Govt change the definition of woman to accommodate me?
I see what you’re saying. One difference in our outlook seems to be that you are looking at how this individual couple or that individual couple approaches marriage, while I am looking at what does marriage mean and why is it licensed by government in the first place. Probably there is some value in each way of looking at the issue, but that is part of why we see it differently, perhaps.OK, that’s valid. And obviously being open to children is part of the deal with Catholic weddings.
But wanting / having / being able to have children isn’t part of the requirements in a civil marriage. You get the same rights, tax breaks, etc. either way. And there are separate rights and tax breaks specifically for those who DO have children.
My point is, if we can have marriage perks without having or wanting kids, why should the inability to have kids stop them? Especially if they adopt – then they DO have kids but still get less protection than couples who don’t
I get your argument, and I agree that’s probably why civil marriage started. But I think there’s value to society in having people pair off in some sort of organized fashion beyond just having children.So I think that it makes sense to stick with the definition that gave us a reason for having civil marriage in the first place, and the definition that helps to safeguard each child’s right to be raised by his or her mother and father.
No. It will make society less stable, as have other factors which contributed to the breakdown of natural marriage, beginning with contraception, then on to sexual license, fornication, single mothers in poverty, fatherless children, no fault divorce, cohabitation, and now, same sex ‘marriage,’ which can only pretend at being marriage. Those things have already led to society and family breakdown; same sex marriage will increase it.I get your argument, and I agree that’s probably why civil marriage started. But I think there’s value to society in having people pair off in some sort of organized fashion beyond just having children.
Two-person households are more economical, and reduce poverty levels, for example. Being in a couple provides emotional support throughout life and physical support in illness and old age (who’s going to care for all these unmarried, childless folks when they get sick?) and more monogamous relationships = fewer STDs.
We can have our own opinions on what homosexual people should or shouldn’t be doing from a moral standpoint, but they’re probably going to keep doing it. And if that’s true, wouldn’t pulling them into the same set of legal and financial responsibilities as the rest of us actually help make society more stable? Again, especially since they can legally adopt and at least some of them will be raising children regardless?
I think you are misunderstanding something about “marriage”. It does not take a penis and a vagina to create a sexual bond or a romantic one. It does, however, take one of each to create the act of coitus, which is the consummation of marriage: The act of bringing the two sexes together in an act which is both a biological agent of new life, and the melding of the “two into one” in the sight of God.LOVE is EXACTLY the issue. **So you are saying that there must be a penis and a vagina to “complete the marital act?” What about those born with both sex organs, or perhaps no sex organs? Then what? **
Explain how specifically you think it is that society will become less stable by allowing people to form legal, committed households who otherwise would be living alone, trying to survive on one income and possibly bouncing from relationship to relationship.No. It will make society less stable, as have other factors which contributed to the breakdown of natural marriage, beginning with contraception, then on to sexual license, fornication, single mothers in poverty, fatherless children, no fault divorce, cohabitation, and now, same sex ‘marriage,’ which can only pretend at being marriage. Those things have already led to society and family breakdown; same sex marriage will increase it.