Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

  • Thread starter Thread starter irishpatrick
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Suudy said:
I admit, I’m troubled by this. As I understand things, the nature of the relationship is what is at issue. And a particular defect (such as losing genitals in an accident, war, etc), does not change that nature. It is still ordered toward procreation, even though the defect prevents it in fact.

Is there a reference to Church teaching on this? Is this canon law? Or in the Catechism?
Click to expand...
There is no sexual act, so it can’t be ordered, even per se, toward procreation.

I can’t look up the Canon Law or Catechism right now, but I will try to do so later today and send it to you.
 
Dale_M said:
LOL

The issue is equal protection under the law. If a government issues legal and financial benefits to heterosexual couples, it should do the same for homosexual couples.

Nothing more is being claimed. If heterosexual couples have a right to marriage (and its governmental benefits) so do homosexual couples.
Click to expand...
This has never been true in the history of this country. It has not been a norm. Gay people apparently do not want legal and financial benefits that could be available to them by other means. Just as Ellen Degeneres told John McCain on her show, they will only accept marriage since they see complete equivalency between their relationships and heterosexual relationships.

As a black, lesbian comedianne who said she was married, said, “We’re two women. We aren’t fooling nobody.” Somehow, this gets completely lost in the argument.

God bless,
Ed
 
rlg94086 said:
There is no sexual act, so it can’t be ordered, even per se, toward procreation.

I can’t look up the Canon Law or Catechism right now, but I will try to do so later today and send it to you.
Click to expand...
I got it for him out of the Code of Canon Law, see posting above.
 
Suudy said:
I admit, I’m troubled by this. As I understand things, the nature of the relationship is what is at issue. And a particular defect (such as losing genitals in an accident, war, etc), does not change that nature. It is still ordered toward procreation, even though the defect prevents it in fact.

Is there a reference to Church teaching on this? Is this canon law? Or in the Catechism?
Click to expand...
It’s in canon law. You can Google canon law and look at the section on the sacrament of marriage. You can also use the “search” function here at CAF as this topic has been discussed many (many) times.
 
AntiTheist said:
Thus spake your dogmatic religious belief – as a result of it being a dogmatic religious belief, you cannot use it as the basis of legislation.
Click to expand...
Respectfully, why do you post here? Are you here to intimidate religious people? To tell them what they can think and what they can do?

God bless,
Ed
 
crazzeto said:
Code of Canon Law #1048
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM

1098

Code of Canon Law TOC
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM
Click to expand...
Ah, so this is canon law. There is no ontological reason to deny infertile or impotent people from marrying. It is rather one that may be permitted were a dispensation to be given.

But this is very different from gay “marriage”. There is no dispensation for gay “marriage” nor can there be. The whole concept of gay “marriage” is ontologically impossible.
 
rlg94086 said:
There is “equal protection under the law.” Not all heterosexual couples receive legal and financial benefits - only those who are married.
Click to expand...
Okay. So, as long as couples have the choice to marry, with all its attendant legal and financial benefits, it is their choice.

But wouldn’t the same apply to homosexual couples, as well as heterosexual couples?
Only if you arbitrarily redefine marriage. Sexual preference is not a protected class of person. It is a desire.
Click to expand...
According to you. Not according to federal law.
 
I really do not know enough to really comment on anything in particular. The only concern I have is the general moral malaise will continue to set in, making it harder for the urgent message of Christ to get through. I am 21 and other young people seem to think that “find yourself” is all that should matter. But it’s not. What matters is finding yourself in Christ.
 
Dale_M said:
Okay. So, as long as couples have the choice to marry, with all its attendant legal and financial benefits, it is their choice.

But wouldn’t the same apply to homosexual couples, as well as heterosexual couples?

According to you. Not according to federal law.
Click to expand...
Please show where the Constitution lists sexual preference as a protected class. I’ve asked several times, but no one has given me the info.

And, no, the “choice to marry” should not apply to homosexual couples because a marriage is the union of a man and a woman. By definition, they don’t qualify.
 
Is it possible to still be a faithful Catholic but also separate religious and legal issues. Sure, I can oppose gay marriage, but if it is, at the end of the day, legal, what good does that do me?
 
Windfish said:
Is it possible to still be a faithful Catholic but also separate religious and legal issues. Sure, I can oppose gay marriage, but if it is, at the end of the day, legal, what good does that do me?
Click to expand...
Not really, by not opposing the sin, you signal your approval of the sin. The Gosple of Jesus Christ demands action.
 
Adam1986 said:
…We’re not here to push our beliefs on ANYONE. All we want are the exact same legal benefits and for it to just be called the same thing. That’s all. 👍
Click to expand...
But, it can never be the same thing. A marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
 
Windfish said:
Is it possible to still be a faithful Catholic but also separate religious and legal issues. Sure, I can oppose gay marriage, but if it is, at the end of the day, legal, what good does that do me?
Click to expand...
Have you read Church teaching on this issue?

God bless,
Ed
 
Whitacre_Girl;6916342 said:
From a Catholic point of view, you are correct.

However, marriage, and sex, is more than procreation. The Catholic Church acknowledges that.

And although the Church is unwilling to accept this argument, if a couple engages in unitive sex doesn’t that bring both persons closer together? Isn’t such uniting oftwo persons valuable to a society?

.
Click to expand...
 
Windfish said:
I really do not know enough to really comment on anything in particular. The only concern I have is the general moral malaise will continue to set in, making it harder for the urgent message of Christ to get through. I am 21 and other young people seem to think that “find yourself” is all that should matter. But it’s not. What matters is finding yourself in Christ.
Click to expand...
Then tell other people that message.

God bless,
Ed
 
What puzzled me is that the judge argued that the ban was rooted in “moral disapproval.” So what? Aren’t prostitution bans rooted in moral disapproval? I don’t want to grant marriage licenses to homosexuals for the exact same reason I don’t want to grant business licenses to hookers – it is one thing for immoral behavior to be tolerated, quite another for it to be actively sponsored by the state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top