On the topic of gay marriage

[Serious]

What is the alternative? I do not see how those who are proposing gay marriage are any different. How is this not “enforcing certain rules, which are only supported by a small group of people.”

You don’t? That is sad. If two people get that license, it does not take away your freedom in any way. If your kind of theocracy is enacted, you will infringe on their freedom. Simple logic.

 

[phoooiee]

You don’t? That is sad. If two people get that license, it does not take away your freedom in any way. If your kind of theocracy is enacted, you will infringe on their freedom. Simple logic.

The issue here is a failure to see that we are interconnected as a society. We don’t exist as small islands. The way our society is run affects us all. If this law is enacted, it will infringe on the freedom of religion of the Church.

The difference between Sharia law and this issue is profound. In Sharia law, sodomy is illegal and punishable.

The Catholic viewpoint seeks to protect free will, but seeks to prevent giving specific sanctions to homosexual relationships.

This is not a theocracy. This is not specific to one religion. Virtually all religions and cultures have agreed that homosexual relationships are not marriage, throughout all ages, including this one.

So if majority is to rule, in fact majority rules that this is not acceptable, and it is in fact “a small portion of the population” seeking to change this rule.

The means by which the law is defined will affect all of us, as it has in countries where this law has been enacted.

I used to believe strongly as you do, but upon further study have changed my mind. It is worth thinking on, please consider with an open mind.

 

[Serious]

The issue here is a failure to see that we are interconnected as a society. We don’t exist as small islands. The way our society is run affects us all. If this law is enacted, it will infringe on the freedom of religion of the Church.

How so? Will you be prevented from worshipping? Will the church be forced to perform rituals for gay and lesbial couples?

The Catholic viewpoint seeks to protect free will, but seeks to prevent giving specific sanctions to homosexual relationships.

Why “special”? They do not want to be stigmatized, just like you do not want to be. Why is that “special” in their case, and natural in yours?

This is not a theocracy. This is not specific to one religion. Virtually all religions and cultures have agreed that homosexual relationships are not marriage, throughout all ages, including this one.

And? Societies change.

The means by which the law is defined will affect all of us, as it has in countries where this law has been enacted.

Which countries, and what was the “change”? And why is it detrimental?

I used to believe strongly as you do, but upon further study have changed my mind. It is worth thinking on, please consider with an open mind.

Oh, my mind is open, but it can only be influenced by logical and reasonable arguments.

 

[phoooiee]

How so? Will you be prevented from worshipping? Will the church be forced to perform rituals for gay and lesbial couples?

Why “special”? They do not want to be stigmatized, just like you do not want to be. Why is that “special” in their case, and natural in yours?

And? Societies change.

Which countries, and what was the “change”? And why is it detrimental?

Oh, my mind is open, but it can only be influenced by logical and reasonable arguments.

All right…I think that most of this has already been discussed, so there is no sense in rehashing it.

It sounds as if you have made up your mind…this feels less and less like a dialogue.

Pax…

phoooiee

 

[Stephen168]

Now I know that this has probably been beaten like a dead horse but I still cannot for the life of me get this. Why does the Church want government sanctioned gay marriage illegal? The Sacrament of Marriage is a sacrament no? The Church is completely free to decide who can validly receive it or not. All gay marriage means for gays is certain bonuses that they can get from the government for example when you do your taxes. The Church does not have to allow gays to marry nor does it have to recognize it as a marriage.

For example the church does not recognize the holy orders of certain denominations. Well you don’t see the Church telling the government that such and such church shouldn’t ordain John Doe. As far as I am concerned all the Church needs to do is let all Catholics know once and for all that gay marriage is and never will be valid and that living a gay life style is sin and an abomination unto the Lord. What gays WHO AREN’T EVEN CATHOLIC do should be none of our concern.

I may have blew my top a little there but it makes no sense, gays aren’t telling the government to force the Church to recognize their marriage and they couldn’t even if they wanted to (1st Amendment). Gay marriage is of no threat to us. At the end of the day you can tell your brother that a sin is a sin and that the merits of which are death and hellfire, but you cannot force your brother to obey the rule of the Lord (otherwise where is the free will God gave us?).

What would you think of the government giving the title of “Catholic Priest” to anyone that presented themselves at the Court House with $50, and asked to be declared so?

 

[NeedImprovement]

This reminds me of an old joke:

A boy-scout comes home, and his father asks him, if he did any good deeds today. The boy-scout answers: “Yes, daddy. I and 4 other scouts helped an old man cross a busy street”. Very nice, says the father, but why did you need your 4 friends? “Because the old guy did not want to cross the street!” answers the boy.

I hope you get the point.

FOCL

. . . . . . I wonder what would happen if we took the old man back out into the middle of the street … you think he’d start whining - “You have to stay here and hold me …I’m free to be a bumper sticker if I want to” ?

And that would have to be where the funny part ends, because the homosexual lobby is trying to make bumper stickers out of everyone’s children now too … wayyyyyyy out of line .

 

[ssa_fellow]

Well, just looked over the thread a bit. I think it’s gone down a few rabbit trails on the 6th page here. But other than that it’s been a pretty good discussion.

I thought I’d quote the recent post from “Ask an Apologist”.
Fr. Vincent Sherpa:

I’m wondering how much else you don’t know about your Catholic faith. This is a very basic teaching of the Catholic Church. The Church obliges Catholics to be married through the Church. Any attempt to marry outside of the Church is automatically invalid for Catholics and is a mortal sin. Since your marriage is not considered to be valid, every time you have marital relations you sin mortally.

Since you did not know of your obligation to marry only through the Church, your attempt at marriage was not a sin for you. But–you are not considered to be validly married and are obliged to live in a celibate way if you want to be in the state of grace. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is worth a mortal sin.

I think that’s pertinent to this thread. If the Church doesn’t recognize Catholics who are civily married. Why on Earth would it recognize 2 homosexuals who are civily married? Well, neither one of those things is going to happen.

The Church isn’t changed by society. The Church changes society.

Anyways, I just want to know… this is my 4th or 5th post on here, and no one in favor of gay marriage seems to want to answer this question:

**I have SSA. I am comitted to the teachings of the Church. And I’m claiming that the lifestyle committed to Christ (through life long celibacy and abtinence) is a superior lifestyle to the “gay lifestyle” in which people actively have gay sex. That lifestyle is inferior. What do you have to say to people like me?

I’m SSA and I KNOW that through the power of Jesus Christ, 100% of “homosexuals” are capable of living life in accordance with the teachings of the Church.**

 

[presidentjlh]

In any event, it’s an issue I’ve grown really tired of hearing about. Should just be up to states, heck, marriage should only be in churches anyways, why is the state doing anything in regards to marriage?

 

[markomalley]

Now I know that this has probably been beaten like a dead horse but I still cannot for the life of me get this. Why does the Church want government sanctioned gay marriage illegal?

Leo XIII spoke about this back in 1880:
17. Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.

1. Hence are owing civil marriages, commonly so called; 'hence laws are framed which impose impediments to marriage; hence arise judicial sentences affecting the marriage contract, as to whether or not it have been rightly made. Lastly, all power of prescribing and passing judgment in this class of cases is, as we see, of set purpose denied to the Catholic Church, so that no regard is paid either to her divine power or to her prudent laws. Yet, under these, for so many centuries, have the nations lived on whom the light of civilization shone bright with the wisdom of Christ Jesus.
2. Nevertheless, the naturalists,(32) as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature.
   
   Arcanum (On Christian Marriage)​
   The bottom line is that the Church hasn’t ever voluntarily turned over the authority to sanction marriage, of any kind, to the State. Marriage is a sacrament. The State usurped that power back in the 19th century. The Church, for whatever reason, acquiesced to the fact that the State has, pretty much universally, created this artificial construct that is known as civil marriage. She doesn’t acknowledge it as being legitimate, but acknowledges that it exists. If you take a look back through history, you will see that every time the State has tried to water down the idea of marriage, the Magisterium has opposed that move: take a look at the idea of divorce, artificial contraception, and so on.

And the Church was 100% right in the opposition. When legal sanction is given, many, if not most times, society will eventually change their mores to accept it. Look at divorce: divorce used to be considered a scandal, even though it was legal. Today, divorce is very commonplace and the Church is considered to be very judgmental and hateful because She denies the Sacraments to those who are divorced and remarried. (Remember that an annulment is not considered a divorce. An annulment states that a marriage was not valid in the first place) Why is that? Because the “remarried” couple are stating, by their very lifestyle, that they have no intent of repenting of the sin of adultery (as defined by Christ). Christ’s forgiveness was not 100% unconditional: He said: “Go and sin no more” to the woman caught in adultery.

The Church’s opposition to “homosexual marriage” is directly related to Her opposition to prior dilutions of the sacrament. The vociferousness of the opposition is directly proportional to the outrageousness and ludicrosity of the change being attempted here.

As the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said back in 2003 when they dealt with this subject:

1. The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.

I encourage you to read the whole document, linked above, because it lays out the Church’s position in very great detail.

 

[Rhuarc]

What would you think of the government giving the title of “Catholic Priest” to anyone that presented themselves at the Court House with $50, and asked to be declared so?

See one thing I left out of here is that government shouldn’t be able to define marriage. Straight of Homosexual period over and done. To allow government to give out a marriage license makes marriage a privilege and marriage is certainly not that. Get government out of religions business. Marriage has and will always be an exclusively religious institution.

 

[white_sheep]

See one thing I left out of here is that government shouldn’t be able to define marriage. Straight of Homosexual period over and done. To allow government to give out a marriage license makes marriage a privilege and marriage is certainly not that. Get government out of religions business. Marriage has and will always be an exclusively religious institution.

That was all incorrect.

Why do you leave out bisexuals? That’s not very nice. Shouldn’t people be able to marry someone of each sex if they want to?

 

[Stephen168]

See one thing I left out of here is that government shouldn’t be able to define marriage. Straight of Homosexual period over and done. To allow government to give out a marriage license makes marriage a privilege and marriage is certainly not that. Get government out of religions business. Marriage has and will always be an exclusively religious institution.

You didn’t answer my question but you might have answered your own.

Why does the Church want government sanctioned gay marriage illegal?

 

[NeedImprovement]

It would appear that, as a natural institution, the comprehensivity of marriage cannot be confiined to “always” having been an “exclusively religious institution” . As a natural institution, it would have to cover a much broader expanse:

From : Modern Catholic Dictionary, Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

MARRIAGE.

As a natural institution, the lasting union of a man and a woman who agree to give and receive rights over each other for the performance of the act of generation and for the fostering of their mutual love.

The state of marriage implies four chief conditions: 1. there must be a union of opposite sexes; it is therefore opposed to all forms of unnatural, homosexual behavior; 2. it is a permanent union until the death of either spouse; 3. it is an exclusive union, so that extramarital acts are a violation of justice; and 4. its permanence and exclusiveness are guaranteed by contract; mere living together, without mutually binding themselves to do so, is concubinage and not marriage.

Christ elevated marriage to a sacrament of the New Law. Christian spouses signify and partake of the mystery of that unity and fruitful love which exists between Christ and his Church, helping each other attain to holiness in their married life and in the rearing and education of their children.

. . . Yet as Father Hardon points out, marriage has at all times,by its very definition , been opposed to all forms of unnatural, homosexual behavior , that is , until, um, . . .

That was all incorrect.

Why do you leave out bisexuals? That’s not very nice. Shouldn’t people be able to marry someone of each sex if they want to?

. . . and just to be safe, in the name of , ahem “equality” doh2 we should probably write some kind of provision into the contract whereby should either of the partners of the bisexual in question , after entering into the contract somehow ensuingly “discover” that they too were bisexual, they should then also have the right to marry at least one other person ; and the same would have to apply to each subsequent partner they marry . . . and so on .