C
CMatt25
Guest
I don’t know about race always being sacred. There was a time when slavery was readily accepted. Besides race, there was a time when even one’s gender determined a right to vote. Things evolve.
- Status
P
Perplexity
Guest
The topic of same-sex religious marriages is irrelevant to the matter at hand. We’re just talking about legal marriages.
A
ASimon
Guest
My question is, would Catholics (and the Catholic Church) support a US government action that eliminated the issuance all marriage licenses by federal/state/local governments? All licenses from that moment on would be of the “civil union” variety - with equal rights granted to all couples (be they straight or gay). So gone is any notion that there exists any sort of legal imbalance between gay couples and straight couples.
Marriage would still be a sacrament. Anyone wishing to be “Married” would need to find a Church willing to perform the rite. As private institutions, they would be no more bound to “marry” a gay couple than the Boy Scouts are to employ a gay Scoutmaster. Though it goes without saying that couples would almost certainly call themselves “married” regardless of whether they ever sought the Church’s sanction. (But to be fair, that’s already the case.)
Marriage would still be a sacrament. Anyone wishing to be “Married” would need to find a Church willing to perform the rite. As private institutions, they would be no more bound to “marry” a gay couple than the Boy Scouts are to employ a gay Scoutmaster. Though it goes without saying that couples would almost certainly call themselves “married” regardless of whether they ever sought the Church’s sanction. (But to be fair, that’s already the case.)
S
Serious
Guest
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.
R
Rhuarc
Guest
But a gay “marriage” would not even be considered a marriage. Do you consider a marriage with two heterosexual atheists a valid marriage? No, because the church was not involved. There is a lot of over reaction on our part.
R
Rhuarc
Guest
You know I actually really like this idea, as I disagree with the government issuing a “marriage license”. As if you need the governments permission to get marriage.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
This is a HUGE problem in the Anglican/Episcopalian Church, and the cause of the split between the element that is clearly saying the Scriptures are not the revealed Word of God, and the part of the Church that does believe in the Truth of Scripture.
In order to bless same sex unions or endorse gay bishops, the Episcopalians have to twist the Bible into the shape they want it to be. A HUGE problem.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
As I stated above, it comes down to whether Scripture is actually the Word of God, or not, just some book that was historical but not meant to be obeyed. I have friends who have left the Episcopalian Church over this. Some churches have been cut off from the larger structure and lost their building if they refuse to support what the American Episcopalian Church teaches, which is that gays are the same as anyone else and have the right to marry. Of course we recognize that if they depart from the NT on ordaining women, they have already taken a giant step away from the truth of the Bible, so everything else just zooms things toward a schism.
P
phoooiee
Guest
I would ask everyone to take a time out to really think.
The trouble here is that there are a lot of assumptions that our culture has begun to make about homosexual relationships that may not be valid.
I was in a homosexual relationship for years and I exhort you to please take the time out to examine your assumptions. Every thinking person owes this to themselves.
The great assumption here is that homosexual love is in fact of the same nature as heterosexual love- that it can be stable and equivalent to the relationship of a heterosexual couple, except for the incidental characteristic of physical gender.
I exhort you to examine the possibility that this may not be true.
The Church teaches that these relationships must not be recognized by the government not because the Church seeks to force all non-Catholics to follow every Catholic rule but rather because this will have a profound impact on society as a whole.
Think about it. The Church is not seeking to ban meat on Good Friday. The Church is not seeking to ban divorce. The Church is not seeking to ban contraception. If the theory that the Church wishes to arbirtrarily impose Catholic morality on all were correct, all of these things would be true.
We owe it to ourselves to think why the Church has chosen this one issue.
Imagine for a moment if the ideology which states that homosexual relationships are the same as heterosexual ones were actually untrue, and that these relationships were actually unhealthy and unstable by their nature. Wouldn’t this change the nature of things? Would we want to build into our social fabric an institution which is actually harmful to people, and give it special government sanctions and benefits? What would be the consequences of such an action? What if we decided to also give benefits to brothers and sisters who were attracted to one another? This, after all, meets the same criteria: sexual attraction as the determining factor for what society should endorse (rather than concern for social stability or the well-being of the human person as a whole.
Please remember that without having experienced being in such a relationship we can make no authoritative judgment about what it is “really” like. We can only know what we have been fed from various external sources.
It is worth it to at least think about it and consider.
S
Serious
Guest
Actually he is just old, and in full command of his facilities. But, blind or not… he did NOT want to cross the street. He was fine where he was. Don’t get me wrong, the idea of wishing to help is commendable… but if your help is not needed or rejected, then learn to shrug and move on.
P
phoooiee
Guest
Remember though, that the current debate is not about helping one old man, but rather about creating the rules by which all old men must live their lives. This has nothing to do with respecting the free will of individuals and everything to do with shaping the character of a society as a whole. The analogy does not hold.Actually he is just old, and in full command of his facilities. But, blind or not… he did NOT want to cross the street. He was fine where he was. Don’t get me wrong, the idea of wishing to help is commendable… but if your help is not needed or rejected, then learn to shrug and move on.
S
sw85
Guest
Yet clearly you do, because earlier you said:Actually I do. I went three quarters of the way through RCIA. I know enough to be educated. Your judging
In other words, you think the Church opposes gay “marriage” as a civil institution because it wants to stamp gay relationships out of existence.I’ve just stopped caring one way or the other. Even in places where same-sex marriage is illegal they’re still performing marriages and holy unions in affirming Churches.
I say let them. Love is love. There will be weddings regardless of official recognition or not.
Now the good people of CAF will disagree with me but I stand my ground.
Bring on the critics!
Now, I’m sure it does want gay relationships to disappear, because it wants sin to disappear. But that’s not why they oppose the civil recognition of gay “marriages.”
Let’s take two hypothetical city-states: Gog and Magog. In neither city-state is there any murder; the murder rate is 0. In Gog, murder is formally prohibited by the law; in Magog, there are no laws at all, on anything. Which city-state is morally superior?
Clearly, Gog is. Because it expresses and protects through its laws that there is a right to live; because the will of the polity is ordered toward the recognition of the rights and duties of its members. The mere fact of recognizing this right makes it morally superior, even though the outcome is exactly identical to that of its lawless neighbor. See what I’m getting at?
Re: “judging,” pointing out that someone lacks knowledge of an important topic isn’t judging (in the Biblically condemned sense). It certainly isn’t a sin. You have this annoying habit of mouthing off about Catholic topics and then accusing everyone who corrects your misunderstandings of judgmentalism. The funny thing is that your conception of judgmentalism is itself a misunderstanding.
Re: your being in RCIA, that doesn’t prove you’re educated about Catholicism at all. RCIA programs are generally terrible and I doubt yours was an exception. My RCIA program has been a joke from start to finish, and I’m just happy it wasn’t taught by out-and-out heretics, as has been the experience with some other posters at CAF. My own deacon, who runs our program, couldn’t even answer my question about the conditions under which communion could be received licitly. There are at least four conditions that I’m aware of, he could relate only two.
The presumption is always that a marriage between a man and woman is valid. Men and women confer the sacrament of marriage on one another; the Church merely witnesses it. The problem arises when one person is a Catholic and the other isn’t: the Catholic is canonically bound to get a dispensation for the marriage, and this lack of dispensation can be an impediment to the conferral of the sacrament.
You’d be better off pointing out that the Church doesn’t object to those marriages between men and women who would be unable to marry canonically, for instance, because the man is chronically and hopelessly impotent. It doesn’t follow, though, that it shouldn’t, nor does it imply an equivalency with its objecting to gay marriage. Because, after all, heterosexual marriages can only be invalid accidentally; homosexual “marriages” are invalid essentially, that is, they are an ontological non sequitur.
I do, all the time. That’s the whole reason I oppose same-sex “marriage,” because I oppose sodomy in general.I applaud the OP, I completely agree!
M
mitex
Guest
Interesting but I’m still not changing my beliefs. And the Church does not need to save my soul because I’m already happy and secure in my present beliefs.
The Church has no business sticking its nose in anyone’s bedrooms.
The Church has no business sticking its nose in anyone’s bedrooms.
S
Serious
Guest
I highlighted the most important part. MUST - according to a very small percentage of the people. As you say, it has nothing to do with the will of the individuals, but has everything to do with enforcing certain rules, which are only supported by a small group of people. Whether it is called theocracy or tyranny, it does not matter. If that is what you support, you might get a rude awakening. It just so happens that Islam is the fastest growing religion, and you might find yourself living under Sharia law… how will you like that? After all the Muslims will only do what your would like to do: shape the society to their taste.
If the analogy was too complimentary describing your goals, then I must apologize.
P
phoooiee
Guest
In no way is the Church sticking its nose in anyone’s bedrooms.
Please remember, no one is seeking to outlaw or prohibit sodomy. It is unprecedented to ask for special recognition of same-sex unions.
Please consider this point, I ask you.
R
Rainaldo
Guest
LOL ridiculous.
“Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous.” (Heb. 13:4, ESV)
“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.” (Eph. 5:12, ESV)
The Church has the right to tell people what to do in their private lives.
But when you belong to a religion that was originally created for the sake of justifying an adulterous union, it only stands to reason that privacy should trump natural law
C
CMatt25
Guest
Jharek, if 2 heterosexual Catholics are married by a Protestant pastor, are they considered by the Church to be in a valid marriage?
C
CMatt25
Guest
Here we go again. Time to criticize/ridicule/ diss the Episcopalians.
Actually it’s not a problem at all in the Episcopal diocese where I reside. Let alone a HUGE one. I’ve been told by clergy there has been little dissension and no exodus of churches whatsover in this diocese. And I doubt this diocese is the only such one.In any case you are way off base if you think as you say “the element” that believes in blessing SS unions or that endorses gay bishops does not believe Scripture is the Word of God and twists it into the shape they want. They simply have a different interpretation of the Word and of the Truth than you do is all.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Oh, really?Here we go again. Time to criticize/ridicule/ trash the Episcopalians.
In any case you are way off base if you think as you say “the element” that believes in blessing SS unions or that endorses gay bishops does not believe Scripture is the Word of God and twists it into the shape they want. They simply have a different interpretation of the Word and of the Truth than you do is all.
Episcopal Split as Conservatives Form New Group
Episcopal split hits new level
So if you don’t notice the problem in your church or diocese, it’s not a problem? Talk about blinders! BTW, this is not “criticizing/ridiculing/trashing” Episcopalians. This is FACT about what is going on in the Anglican Church at this time. Why do you think Anglicans are coming back to Catholicism in the first place?
C
CMatt25
Guest
It’s not difficult at all. If they believe the decision rests with the priest, then that’s what they believe.
- Status