I have asked that question many times here. No, Civil Marriage doesn’t alter the sacrament. Others in this forum tell me that allowing gay marriage is sending the message that homosexual activities are “normal” and “permissible…” There are also declarations that it would force people to either violate their moral convictions by providing services for gay marriages or being punished/persecuted for not rendering services.
Allowing gay “marriage” to be legal would be representing it as an equal goal for one to seek to attain if they have same-sex attractions. This would put their soul unnecessarily in danger, especially compared to good catechesis from a young age teaching that attractions should not be acted on but rather used in manners appropriate to moral law. Thereby, same-sex attractions should be channeled into close, non-sexual friendships with members of the same sex that do not tempt you into sin. Marriage (and parenting, going hand in hand) should also be taught as a spiritual and social responsibility, not as the endgoal of a temporal seeking of Earthly pleasure.
Well, besides believing it’s a sin that was at least partly responsible for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, we believe that promoting homosexuality runs counter to what we think is healthy to society.
The people who are being persecuted are Christians who disagree with so-called gay “marriage” mostly because of what is highlighted in bold.
This post should be framed and on the wall.
Doesn’t help in public debate though. The church’s concern is the salvation of the soul…which for some is simply a fantasy. Yet are we working to impose our beliefs on society? I think so because we impose a legislative framework on a belief that not all Canadians share as an example…
And that message is simply a Catholic message; it is based on a world view taught by the church… are we to force that world view on those who do not share it? This, to me, is where that arguement and the stands of the bishops start to fall apart for me. We -as a church - believe in the supremacy of conscience, are we saying that with forked tongue while we pressure politicians to narrow the definition of marriage (and as citizen’s we can do that) to that of one man, one women for the purposes of procreation. I agree however, that part of the societal agreement should be that people, businesses, etc., should not be forced to not follwo their conscience and the state’s argument that if you take federal money, you are bound to federal conditions… is a state imposition of freedom of religion… is it not? I’m sure the gay lobby will take that one on…and why should we not extend charitable support to those who are gay… I have no problem providing services for gay and straight people on an equal basis; i respect the dignity of the gay person and I most certainly respect the supremacy of their conscience and above all “who am I to judge”?
Again, these Catholic arguements are not helpful to the public discussion. Gay marriages should be an equal goal within a state defined framework for marriage; the balancing right of course is our freedom to be Catholic in the state and that balance has to be respected.
I think that laws that require church’s to abandon their teaching is very relevant; we cannot accept that in countries who value personal freedoms including religious expression. If we continue to oppose state defined marriage to be consisent with our beliefs, then I believe we are guilty of imposing our faith on the world… that is not the message of evangelization, nor is it the beautiful experience of conversion…I don’t believe God is as judgemental of a person’s sexual orientation as many of us Catholics are… but my main point is why are we forcing our views on the state.
Bad analogy and one that does not represent the situation well. First of all gay people who choose to get married are not troubled, they are intelligent human beings who have analyzed all the fact and made peace with their Creator in all of this and in a lot of cases realized a marriage that is successful (I don’t have any statistical back up on that).
SuperLuigi, why am i not surprised or shocked by your responseThis post should be framed and on the wall.
Clear Water I think that is just silly thinking… it ain’t going to happen so why put that arguement in as a legitimate thought? Again, that silly evocation of extremes in not helpful to the public conversation on this…we need to be reaching out and understanding, not necessarily agreeing with other points and thoughts EVEN from our gay brothers and sisters.
Interesting point. How does the state subsidize gay marriages? I would be very interested to hear that argument cause I have never heard it before.
I have heard this argument before(in these forums). I can’t speak for the person that you are asking so this may not be what s/he had in mind.
Because when you legalize certain conduct the consequence of that legalization is social acceptance, and people within the catholic church are going to start viewing the conduct as pperfectly fine, hence they are going to start doing it. Divorce is the perfect example to me. When no fault divorce was being discussed back in the fifties the church was opposed to it and the same argument was made. Legal no fault divorce is going to have zero impact on the church because the church is not forced to recognize the divorce. The church should not be concerned because giving people the legal right of divorce won’t affect sacramwntal marriage. It has been over 70 years and legal divorce has heavily affected the church as now it has tons of people that are divorce, their second marriage is not recognized and those people now are asking for acceptance. Same goes for same sex marriage. It has become socially acceptable so now you have growing numbers of catholics who don’t see anything wrong with homosexuality hence the amount of catholics incurring in the sin of homosexuality will become bigger and bigger.