Pelosi Says Her Catholic Faith ‘Compels’ Her To Support Gay Marriage

[Julia_Mae]

I have asked this question many times of people who support so-called same sex marriage (and have yet to receive even one rational anwer).

Are you asking me? I mean, Pelosi isn’t posting, so I’ll assume so. Here is your question:

If it is moral and just for us to redefine the institution of marriage to include same sex couples, then why is it not moral and just to redefine marriage to include any reasonable loving relationship (i.e. three men, three women, one man with two women, etc.)? So long as the people in those other arrangements are adults, they are of sound mind, and are truly commited to each other, who are we to say their desire for marriage is wrong, or immoral?

1. I never said that the Church should redefine marriage. I think that government needs to get out of the “marriage” business altogether. I support civil union.
2. How other people define marriage, as long as we include your caveat: *So long as the people in those other arrangements are adults, they are of sound mind, * and add mine: and are making a thoroughly free choice, is not my business.

“Morality” is the business of individuals and churches, philosophies and art. It is not the business of government.

 

[LilyM]

Sorry, no not correct.

It mimics real marriage and the Church has said it cannot be supported.

Marriage is not some thing you make up on your own.

Scuse I, but can you point me to where exactly the Church has stated that it prohibits all and any forms of legal recognition/benefit for homosexual couples? I’m sure I’ve never seen anything of the sort. And if groups of workers getting together can be called a ‘union’, then why not a group of two people living together in a life partnership?

Assuming it does prohibit it, then why are we OK (and we seem to be) with heterosexual de facto (unmarried) couples being bestowed various property rights and the like in recognition of their relationships? In many jurisdictions there are measures like official registration of de facto relationships. Not that couples go through any ceremony approximating a marriage ceremony to register, but it gives the partners legal rights as I’ve said.

And why can we not advocate for similar measures for same sex couples? Those heterosexuals fornicating without benefit of marriage are equally in sin, yet we offer then practical help as mentioned above without, seemingly, a peep out of the Church.

 

[Suudy]

“Morality” is the business of individuals and churches, philosophies and art. It is not the business of government.

Nonsense. Is murder a moral issue? Rape? Theft? Slavery? Social safety nets?

 

[Julia_Mae]

That is my point–if they love each other, and do no direct harm to others, why not let them marry? If we think it is okay for two men to marry, why not three?

Why not?

 

[Califman831]

I’m Catholic, I do. Pelosi is Catholic, she does. Many Catholics do, they just don’t post here.

They tend to post on National Catholic Reporter, they are pro-gay, pro-abortion, and pro-women priests, anti-clerical. Wait are those last two not in contradiction

 

[Havard]

I think that government needs to get out of the “marriage” business altogether.

That’s not what Pelosi is supporting though. She’s saying the government should broaden the scope of secular marriage. So it sounds like you don’t exactly support her POV, either, but that you have a third one.

 

[Publisher]

Nonsense. Is murder a moral issue? Rape? Theft? Slavery? Social safety nets?

To Julia Mae’s point…none of the things you stated are issues that both or all parties with sound minds and without coercion have chosen to enter into by their own free will. No one gives consent to be murdered or raped…No one gives consent to be someone’s slave and property…no one agrees to be stolen from…no one agrees to acts of violence perpetrated against their person.

Those who wish to enter into same sex marriage are of legal age, consent of their own free will without coercion or threat of violence against them and do so to establish a more cohesive relatinonship with their chosen mate.

 

[LilyM]

Hi LilyM.I always enjoy your posts.I don’t think I said anything about letting anyone starve or my not helping someone or not giving financial aid to an unwed mother and her children,or not giving medical treatment to someone whose condition exists because of choices they made with their lives.However it is not "charitable to say they are right in their choices or that the sin was right.The person our Lord loves,the sin greatly offends and hurts Him.

Thankyou.

No, you didn’t say it specifically. But your argument is that bestowing legal rights on someone or something is equivalent to a moral endorsement or condoning of that person or thing.

I’m pointing out that this is not always true - we offer various types of legal and governmental assistance in all sorts of cases of dubious morality. And I mentioned a few of them. In those cases as far as I know it has never been suggested inside or outsode the Church that offering the legal protections or financial assistance equated to condoning the behaviour.

Please don’t imagine for a second that I am advocating for gay marriage here. I firmly stand by the Church’s teaching on the issue, and if I am wrong in any way will gladly work to conform my thinking to Church teaching.

I simply haven’t seen anything in Church teaching that prohibits civil unions being recognized between gay partners, or at least gay relationships officially registered by the state, and so property and similar rights bestowed as they often are in heterosexual unmarried defacto relationships, or something similar.

 

[jilly4ski]

To Julia Mae’s point…none of the things you stated are issues that both or all parties with sound minds and without coercion have chosen to enter into by their own free will. No one gives consent to be murdered or raped…No one gives consent to be someone’s slave and property…no one agrees to be stolen from…no one agrees to acts of violence perpetrated against their person.

Those who wish to enter into same sex marriage are of legal age, consent of their own free will without coercion or threat of violence against them and do so to establish a more cohesive relatinonship with their chosen mate.

Yet your definition of marriage (yes even civil marriage) does not line up either. The state supports marriage for specific reasons, and the confer special benefits on those in a married state in order to promote marriage (because it is good for the state). However, those reasons do not exist with same sex or polygamous “marriages.” Thus the states disallows these types of “marriages.” Not to mention most of the benefits that married couples have can be had by any other 2 people (3 tends to get more complicated legally). They just have to do a little bit of work and go to a lawyer to draw up the appropriate documents. Though of course people who want to get married have to go and get a license, pay the fee, and actually exchange vows before their benefits kick in.

It is however on thing to say that the state must recognize same sex marriage and another to say that the state should get out of the marriage business.

Of course I don’t believe that the state will get out of the marriage business, because marriage actually confers a benefit on society as a whole, and the state wants to encourage people (heterosexual couples) to get married and to stay married.

 

[rlg94086]

I simply haven’t seen anything in Church teaching that prohibits civil unions being recognized between gay partners, or at least gay relationships officially registered by the state, and so property and similar rights bestowed as they often are in heterosexual unmarried defacto relationships, or something similar.

There have been some clear statements against civil unions in the US throught the USCCB. I found this from the Pontifical Council for the Family:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_20001109_de-facto-unions_en.html

Making homosexual relations equivalent to marriage is much more grave
(23) The truth about conjugal love also makes it possible to understand the serious social consequences of the institutionalization of homosexual relations: “We can also see how incongruous is the demand to grant ‘marital’ status to unions between persons of the same sex. It is opposed, first of all, by the objective impossibility of making the partnership fruitful through the transmission of life according to the plan inscribed by God in the very structure of the human being. Another obstacle is the absence of the conditions for that interpersonal complementarity between male and female willed by the Creator at both the physical-biological and the eminently psychological levels”.[39] Marriage cannot be reduced to a condition similar to that of a homosexual relationship: this is contrary to common sense.[40] In the case of homosexual relations, which demand to be considered de facto unions, the moral and juridical consequences take on special relevance.[41] “Lastly, ‘de facto unions’ between homosexuals are a deplorable distortion of what should be a communion of love and life between a man and a woman in a reciprocal gift open to life”.[42]** However, the presumption to make these unions equivalent to “legal marriage”, as some recent initiatives attempt to do, is even more serious.[43] Furthermore, the attempts to legalize the adoption of children by homosexual couples adds an element of great danger to all the previous ones.**[44] “The bond between two men or two women cannot constitute a real family and much less can the right be attributed to that union to adopt children without a family”.[45] To recall the social transcendence of the truth about conjugal love and consequently the grave error of recognizing or even making homosexual relations equivalent to marriage does not presume to discriminate against these persons in any way. It is the common good of society which requires the laws to recognize, favor and protect the marital union as the basis of the family which would be damaged in this way.[46]

 

[Dawnia]

To Julia Mae’s point…none of the things you stated are issues that both or all parties with sound minds and without coercion have chosen to enter into by their own free will. No one gives consent to be murdered or raped…No one gives consent to be someone’s slave and property…no one agrees to be stolen from…no one agrees to acts of violence perpetrated against their person.

But indecency laws, gambling laws and incest are all based on morality.

Those who wish to enter into same sex marriage are of legal age, consent of their own free will without coercion or threat of violence against them and do so to establish a more cohesive relatinonship with their chosen mate.

Nothing in current law prevents any two consenting adults, even those already married to others, from establishing a cohesive relationship with their chosen mate or mates.

 

[Kevin812]

No, a Catholic can NOT support civil unions.

**You are certainly correct! A Catholic Must support Marriage Equality. It is the only just thing to do. **

 

[rlg94086]

**You are certainly correct! A Catholic Must support Marriage Equality. It is the only just thing to do. **

Um…yeah…we already support marriage equality.

 

[Dawnia]

**You are certainly correct! A Catholic Must support Marriage Equality. It is the only just thing to do. **

Of course it’s the only thing to do…if you want to spend eternity in Hell. :coolinoff:

 

[Kevin812]

Of course it’s the only thing to do…if you want to spend eternity in Hell. :coolinoff:

Is there a hint of lacking charity here?

 

[AnotherVoice]

I understand your concern, but the Holy Father himself is aware of her dissidence (he met with her in 2009 and evidently chastised her himself), however he didn’t recommend public excommunication. I’m no blind sheep, but I won’t pretend to know Holy Father or Archbishop’s job better than they do… if they don’t see fit to excommunicate her, I trust they have their reasons.

I think that the Pope would leave any disciplinary actions up to the Archbishop. Perhaps the Archbishop does not feel excommunication is appropriate and that restricting the sacraments is also not in order. Clearly it is his choice.

But think about what you said – the Pope personally takes her aside and chastises her for her pronouncements and still they continue, in fact her pronouncements seem to be kicked up a notch since their meeting. Are votes really that precious?

No wonder so many Catholics do not feel the need to listen to church teachings or to their Bishops.

 

[rlg94086]

Is there a hint of lacking charity here?

Well, if you are calling the granting of marital status to a gay couple “equality,” then Dawnia was just making it clear that spreading such heresy would be a grave matter. Dying in the state of mortal sin would mean an eternity in Hell.

 

[Dawnia]

Is there a hint of lacking charity here?

Of course not. Only pointing out the conclusion for doing what you propose.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

**You are certainly correct! A Catholic Must support Marriage Equality. It is the only just thing to do. **

Catholics must support marriage propriety. Only the devil think he’s God’s equal.

 

[Kevin812]

Well, if you are calling the granting of marital status to a gay couple, then Dawnia was just making it clear that spreading such heresy would be a grave matter. Dying in the state of mortal sin would mean an eternity in Hell.

Heresy? That has not been determined by the Church. Mostly because it fails to meet any of the tests or measures.

As to determining rather some one is in hell or going to hell is treading dangerous waters.