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

[Brooklyn]

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?

Abortion - the legal killing of a baby inside the womb of its mother - is also legal, and vehemently opposed by the Church. What good does it do you to oppose that? If you don’t oppose it, at least in your prayers if no other way, you have some answering to do. The same is true of same sex marriage.

If you are not opposed to same sex marriage, then you are in opposition to the Church. Why does it have to “get” you something? What is it that you want out of your opposition?

 

[Lutheranteach]

You can argue the religious aspect of it all you want — which no court is going to consider at all relevant —*but same sex “marriage” is most likely going to be the law of the land sooner or later. My suggestion is to keep your moral opposition but get on board with the fact it will occur and be involved in the process so you will have some (name removed by moderator)ut rather than none.

 

[Corki]

These are two separate questions.

Is it possible to still be a faithful Catholic but also separate religious and legal issues.

Yes, but separating the religious and legal does not mean that one can be a faithful Catholic and support homosexual unions.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Sure, I can oppose gay marriage, but if it is, at the end of the day, legal, what good does that do me?

Again, the Vatican gives us the answer (bolding mine):

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage,** clear and emphatic opposition is a duty**. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

 

[Dale_M]

I find it sufficient to look at basic biology and evolution to determine that a homosexual act has no value from an evolutionary standpoint and that it has no value from a societal standpoint…it just plain doesn’t have any value…at all.

In other words, you have no idea what promotes survival from an evolutionary standpoint, but you are willing to sit back and speculate. And then present your ideas as if they were somehow factual.

Come on… you are just guessing, as any of us are.

 

[Brooklyn]

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?

.

You have me totally confused. What are you talking about? How is illicit sex suppose to “unify” a couple? And what is “unitive” sex?

 

[crazzeto]

You can argue the religious aspect of it all you want — which no court is going to consider at all relevant —*but same sex “marriage” is most likely going to be the law of the land sooner or later. My suggestion is to keep your moral opposition but get on board with the fact it will occur and be involved in the process so you will have some (name removed by moderator)ut rather than none.

To what end? I’m afraid I can’t go along with this suggestion.

 

[Brooklyn]

In other words, you have no idea what promotes survival from an evolutionary standpoint, but you are willing to sit back and speculate. And then present your ideas as if they were somehow factual.

Come on… you are just guessing, as any of us are.

Are you trying to say that homosexual sex somehow “promotes survival from an evolutionary standpoint”??? How does sex that has no chance of producing life promote survival? Your posts tend to be very confusing.

 

[scipio337]

It will all come to Anthony Kennedy’s hands, a Roman Catholic. I pray he makes the right decision.

His record is all over the place. Sided with Ginsburg and Breyer in Romer v Evans, Scalia in Boy Scouts v Dale.

 

[Suudy]

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

Indeed. In needs to be both unitive and genitive.

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?.

A disordered act can never be unitive. Homosexual acts are disordered, and are unable to be unitive. So no, homosexual acts cannot be valuable to society.

 

[Dale_M]

I
Don’t you have any actual argument for the supposed unconstitutionality of defining marriage as heterosexual? Can you point to me where sexual preference is a protected class?

I’m not sure that the US Constitution speaks one way or the other. But certainly the US Constitution doesn’t limit marriage to only heterosexuals. However, if federal laws grant privileges to heterosexual couples, then equal protection under the law would require such benefits to be extended to homosexual couples.

 

[Brooklyn]

It will all come to Anthony Kennedy’s hands, a Roman Catholic. I pray he makes the right decision.

His record is all over the place. Sided with Ginsburg and Breyer in Romer v Evans, Scalia in Boy Scouts v Dale.

This is not comforting. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which said states could not outlaw homosexual activity. I think we are coming up to another Roe v. Wade moment.

 

[Dale_M]

LOL

There is “equal protection under the law.” Not all heterosexual couples receive legal and financial benefits - only those who are married. The issue is not “equal protection” it is the arbitrary redefining “marriage.” There is no value to society to redefine marriage, and there is no discrimination invovled

Well, true enough. But if the local law forbids a couple from getting married, they are being denied equal protection.

 

[Brooklyn]

I’m not sure that the US Constitution speaks one way or the other. But certainly the US Constitution doesn’t limit marriage to only heterosexuals. However, if federal laws grant privileges to heterosexual couples, then equal protection under the law would require such benefits to be extended to homosexual couples.

Liberal thought is amazing. You might be surprised to learn that prior to our generation, the thought of marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman was never even thought of!!! I remember the line in “Some Like It Hot”. Tony Curtis says “Why would a man want to marry a man?” It was hilarious back then. Now people would be offended by it.

No, the US Constitution does not directly address this because it was never an issue!!!

Our world has turned completely upside down.

 

[Dale_M]

A man (a human with male sexuality) and a woman (a human with female sexuality) have the ability to procreate a child (a new human being) through something called a “sexual act” where the sperm from a man impregnates the ovum of a woman.

Now, this is true of men and women, by nature…iow, if you are speaking about the essence of procreation, this is how it happens.

An “individual” is only one man or woman. Marriage is not based on an individual. It is based on the very nature of humans and the procreative act.

Clear?

You are reducing marriage to procreation. That isn’t the only purpose of Marriage. The Catholic Church teaches this. Likewise, governments allow infertile couples or couples beyond the age of child bearing to marry. Procreation is only one reason to marry, and not necessarily the most important.

 

[bingbang]

Liberal thought is amazing. You might be surprised to learn that prior to our generation, the thought of marriage as anything other than between a man and a woman was never even thought of!!! I remember the line in “Some Like It Hot”. Tony Curtis says “Why would a man want to marry a man?” It was hilarious back then. Now people would be offended by it.

No, the US Constitution does not directly address this because it was never an issue!!!

Our world has turned completely upside down.

Just a few generations ago the thought of having a plantation without slaves was “never even thought of!!!”

What is your point?

 

[Dale_M]

Anyone gonna answer me?

About what?

This thread is flying. Its easy for any one comment to get lost in the wind. What did you say/ask?

 

[Suudy]

You are reducing marriage to procreation. That isn’t the only purpose of Marriage. The Catholic Church teaches this.

Procreation isn’t the only purpose, no. But it is an essential purpose. Marriage without openness to procreation is disordered, and if it exists prior to the ceremony, invalid.

Likewise, governments allow infertile couples or couples beyond the age of child bearing to marry.

Again, the point is the essential nature of the relationship. It isn’t about any particular incident or particular defect. The government allows infertile couples to marry because it is naturally ordered towards procreation. Just because a defect exists in fact does not change the nature of the marriage.

Procreation is only one reason to marry, and not necessarily the most important.

Perhaps not the most important in all cases. But certainly essential in all cases. But essential in nature only, not in fact.

 

[Dale_M]

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.

A couple celebrities do not speak for everyone else. Certainly there are gay women and men who are eager for the benefits of marriage.

 

[Brooklyn]

You are reducing marriage to procreation. That isn’t the only purpose of Marriage. The Catholic Church teaches this. Likewise, governments allow infertile couples or couples beyond the age of child bearing to marry. Procreation is only one reason to marry, and not necessarily the most important.

You keep ignoring my posts, but I can’t help but respond to yours. Do you know what marriage is about? Do you know why God gave marriage to man? And as a Catholic, you should know that marriage was given by God himself. It is not an invention of mankind. Marriage pictures the relationship between God and man. The Church is called the Bride of Christ. Why do you think that is? Why do you think it is not called the “bridegroom” of Christ, or the “Spouse” of Christ?

Yes, procreation is the most important reason for marriage. There is nothing more important than bringing children into the world. Our children are potential members of the Kingdom of God. Our children are the reason Christ came into the world and shed his blood. There is nothing more profound than being a parent. And God created marriage as the place in which to raise and teach those children and hopefully bring them to God.

Yes, sometimes couples are not able to have children, but that doesn’t mean that it’s then okay for anyone to enter into a relationship and call it marriage. Your reasoning is upside and backwards. I would strongly suggest that you read the Catechism.

 

[Corki]

A disordered act can never be unitive. Homosexual acts are disordered, and are unable to be unitive. So no, homosexual acts cannot be valuable to society.

Agreed. However, the issue that was theoretically considered by the court was whether same-sex marriage** in the aggregate **would be beneficial to society.

1. In the micro, could an individual same-sex couple have a positive impact on society? Sure.
2. Could same-sex marriages as a group have a positive impact on society if looked at in a vaccum? I would say this is, at best, neutral. Same-sex marriages would have neither a positive nor negative impact on society, if viewed alone.
3. Could same-sex marriages have a negative impact on society if looked at organically with the rest of the existing elements of society? I say, emphatically, “yes”. The fact that so many people are willing to consider eliminating civil marriage altogether is a symptom of a serious negative impact on society. The fact that redefining the definition of marriage would over ride existing liberties Americans enjoy such as free association, free speech and freedom of religious expression is a serious negative impact on society.