Same-sex civil unions are not a religious issue

[Giants]

As you can see from my earlier posts, I’m not contending that it’s “my religion” that defines what marriage is. However, “my religion” does *recognize *the truth of the institution. Marriage is what it is, and no attempt to change its meaning will change what it is.

Who or what decided what this “truth” was? Where does this “truth” come from? Calling it a “natural institution” does nothing to advance your argument - leaving aside that there is nothing particularly “natural” about two mammals agreeing to mate exclusively with one another for life. Nature is rife with examples of creatures doing precisely the opposite.

I’m not making that mistake. Your first mistake is in assuming that if there are two different definitions of marriage in a society, that somehow it is a workable concept. Your second mistake is assuming that I’m trying to impose my religious beliefs on society. I am not. Marriage is a natural institution, not a purely Catholic institution. You cannot marginalize the truth of what a marriage is by labelling the truth as “religious.”

Until you actually make an argument that isn’t centered on concepts as vague and broad as the word “natural,” I’m afraid you haven’t advanced your position. Whether your definition of marriage is a religious one or Something Else, it does not address my point. If the government redefines marriage for secular society, you are perfectly free to retain whatever definition you like. The problem is that you think, first, that you and your kind are the unchallenged spokespersons for “Natural,” and further, that your opinions should be legally binding on the rest of us. Nope.

Your third mistake is that you are telling me that my moral beliefs cannot be legislated, while at the same time gay activists are trying to do the very same thing (legislate their own moral code) by changing the definition of marriage. Your position is inherently contradictory on this last point.

Don’t blame me - blame the U.S. Constitution. You can’t legislate on the basis of religious dogma. If a moral precept from a secular source happens to align with religious dogma, that’s fine. But homosexuality isn’t a religion, and gay activists can, quite legally, argue for a change in the government’s redefinition of marriage. In turn, the government cannot force religions to conform to any such redefinition.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Who or what decided what this “truth” was? Where does this “truth” come from? Calling it a “natural institution” does nothing to advance your argument - leaving aside that there is nothing particularly “natural” about two mammals agreeing to mate exclusively with one another for life. Nature is rife with examples of creatures doing precisely the opposite.

You are confusing the term “natural” for naturalistic. We are human beings, not animals. We have reason and natural law are those truths that can be ascertained purely by human reason, without any sort of divine revelation. Marriage is what it is - the union of male and female for the purpose of mutual support AND the creation and rearing of offspring. That is its purpose. It is not my argument. It is what reason and logic tell us marriage is, by observation alone.

Giants:

Until you actually make an argument that isn’t centered on concepts as vague and broad as the word “natural,” I’m afraid you haven’t advanced your position. Whether your definition of marriage is a religious one or Something Else, it does not address my point. If the government redefines marriage for secular society, you are perfectly free to retain whatever definition you like. The problem is that you think, first, that you and your kind are the unchallenged spokespersons for “Natural,” and further, that your opinions should be legally binding on the rest of us. Nope.

You are making no sense here. My argument is that marriage one can come to understand what marriage is apart from divine revelation, and that application of reason yields one definition - the definition that includes mutal support AND procreation and rearing of offspring. That is why marriage exists. Your point seems to be that a majority of people (or a judicial officer), can redefine marriage in a way that contradicts what logic and reason tell us about the institution, and that’s “okay with you.” Well, I’m sorry, but my response is that it’s not okay with me, because it replaces the truth with a legislated lie. My further response is that a lie, once legislated, will quickly grate against those who continue to speak the truth that is being “overruled” by fiat.

Giant:

Don’t blame me - blame the U.S. Constitution. You can’t legislate on the basis of religious dogma. If a moral precept from a secular source happens to align with religious dogma, that’s fine. But homosexuality isn’t a religion, and gay activists can, quite legally, argue for a change in the government’s redefinition of marriage. In turn, the government cannot force religions to conform to any such redefinition.

As I’ve tried to point out, I’m not advocating the legislation of Catholic dogma. But your argument that Catholics cannot advocate before their legislators and courts for laws that are consistent with Catholic moral teachings, and instead must remain muzzled in their pews is simply not the law, nor is it consistent with a democratic republic. Of course we can advocate for laws that are consistent with our beliefs, so long as those laws fit within the constitutional framework of our system of government. A law that recognizes marriage as being between one man and one woman is consistent with constitutional principles.

You say that homosexuality is not a “religion” and I agree. But I would counter that the “gay lifestyle” (something other than mere same sex attraction) is an alternative set of moral codes and practices that in the same way as a religion dictates the bounds of acceptable moral conduct. If gay activists can lobby to change the laws to meet their set of moral codes and precepts, then clearly Catholics Protestants and Jews and Muslims can also work to create laws that are premised upon the traditional judeo-christian values that already underpin western society.

Finally, your contention that government cannot “force religions” to conform to the redefinition of marriage has yet to be tested. Certainly, individuals who ascribe to Catholic morality can be forced by law to accept “gay marriage” as the law of the land. It’s already happening in Canada, and parts of the U.S. To say that the Church will not be “forced” to perform such ceremonies may be true (although that also may result in loss of federal and/or state benefits that are conferred on religious institutions and churches). However, individual Catholics certainly will be persecuted if they refuse to “drink the Kool-Aid” and embrace the concept of same-sex marriage outside of the four walls of their parish. Your suggestion that we will all simply all move forward holding juxtaposed views of what marriage, with no side suffering harm, is naive at best.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Kevin_B]

Kevin B naively argued that the Catholic Church would not be forced to officiate at same-sex marriages on the grounds that a same-sex couple would still be able to contract civil marriage under secular authorities. He fails to notice that the push for same-sex marriage is grounded in the implications of existing civil-rights legislation and the precedents that it sets.

That’s the perfect example! Thanks! I love how you guys are giving examples that prove my point, it makes my job a lot easier.
You say that same-sex marriage will have the same precedents as civil rights legislation.So the Catholic church will have the same right to deny marriage to homosexual couples s this church does to a black couple.
newsone.com/2027520/jim-crow-style-white-mississippi-church-refuses-to-marry-black-couple/

The problem is, again, s lack of understanding of our legal process. BUSINESSES can be required to provide services to people, not churches. Why? Because the constitution gives freedom of religion, not freedom to operate a business however you like. Saying the two are equal is ignoring 250 years of our legal system, since never in those 250 years has a church EVER been forced to perform a ceremony it did not want to. Using arguments like this just gives ammo to the opposition. After all, they say, if Christians are wrong about that, who knows what else they are wrong about? You will never find a constitutional scholar who says this is possible. It is simply predicted by alarmists who don’t really understand how our system works.

However, individual Catholics certainly will be persecuted if they refuse to “drink the Kool-Aid” and embrace the concept of same-sex marriage outside of the four walls of their parish.

Just like how Catholics are persecuted for opposing abortions? Oh wait, no Catholic has ever been persecuted for that, because the constitution also gives freedom of speech.

However, since marriage is not the topic of this thread, this discussion Is over. Please stick to the topic.

Any union whatever you want to label it, where two men or two women engage in sex is an abomination to God and places souls in a state of mortal sin

Correct. However, since civil unions do not imply sex and, as Coptic Christian pointed out often involve two people who do not have sex, they are not necessarily sinful. Only homosexual unions are sinful, not same-sex unions.

 

[rossum]

That’s the perfect example! Thanks! I love how you guys are giving examples that prove my point, it makes my job a lot easier.
You say that same-sex marriage will have the same precedents as civil rights legislation.So the Catholic church will have the same right to deny marriage to homosexual couples s this church does to a black couple.
newsone.com/2027520/jim-crow-style-white-mississippi-church-refuses-to-marry-black-couple/

A similar example is divorce. The Catholic Church is, and remains, free to refuse to marry divorced people in church, yet civil divorce has been around for a long time.

rossum

 

[fix]

In conclusion, I feel that the church’s position on civil unions is a political opinion instead of a moral law, and therefore is not infallible,whether it its right or wrong.

You seem to be confusing a few items here. The Church’s position is based on reason and can be supported by reason. Certainly revealed truth never contradicts reason, but that is not the issue either.

What does infalliblity have to do with this topic?

You use the word opinion to assert that the truth of the position is relative, but it is not.

She has even given some documents to explain Her position. None of them use relativism as the foundation for the position.

And, since I believe in giving our government as little power as possible over us (since the last thing want iliberals take over is a government with the power to control our everyday actions) I believe that the government should have no say so in who someone chooses to be with them at a hospital, have their possessions when they die, and all the other choices that come with a civil union, none of which involve religion in even the slightest manner.

The government has no right to redefine marriage. The government can abuse its authority but the solution to that is not what you seem to be advocating.

 

[onenow1]

Well of course it’s a moral issue too. But the courts make rulings on law, not morals.

Courts should not make laws , IMHO, that belong to natures God and of course Jewish and Christian principles of God’s laws.

God Bless

 

[CopticChristian]

That’s the perfect example! Thanks! I love how you guys are giving examples that prove my point, it makes my job a lot easier.
You say that same-sex marriage will have the same precedents as civil rights legislation.So the Catholic church will have the same right to deny marriage to homosexual couples s this church does to a black couple.
newsone.com/2027520/jim-crow-style-white-mississippi-church-refuses-to-marry-black-couple/

The problem is, again, s lack of understanding of our legal process. BUSINESSES can be required to provide services to people, not churches. Why? Because the constitution gives freedom of religion, not freedom to operate a business however you like. Saying the two are equal is ignoring 250 years of our legal system, since never in those 250 years has a church EVER been forced to perform a ceremony it did not want to. Using arguments like this just gives ammo to the opposition. After all, they say, if Christians are wrong about that, who knows what else they are wrong about? You will never find a constitutional scholar who says this is possible. It is simply predicted by alarmists who don’t really understand how our system works.

Just like how Catholics are persecuted for opposing abortions? Oh wait, no Catholic has ever been persecuted for that, because the constitution also gives freedom of speech.

However, since marriage is not the topic of this thread, this discussion Is over. Please stick to the topic.

Correct. However, since civil unions do not imply sex and, as Coptic Christian pointed out often involve two people who do not have sex, they are not necessarily sinful. Only homosexual unions are sinful, not same-sex unions.

Kevin,

What is your job?

Homosexual unions are sinful.

Same-sex unions are not sinful.

In the context of your job get to work on how you differentiate this for me.

 

[Cider]

There have been an untold number of threads about same-sex marriage, so I’m not even going to mention it, and I ask that no one else mention it to avoid the thread being detailed. I also ask that no politicians, political parties or elections be mentioned to avoid breaking the forum rules.

What are civil unions? They are not religious ceremonies. They do not imply that the two people involved will have children. In other words, they contain none of the reasons the church has for opposing same-sex marriage. They area purely legal document which converts rights on a person of your choosing, like the right to hospital visitation, right to automatic inheritance, etc.
The church claims that they mimic marriage, which IMGO is an insult to marriage. They have nothing in common with marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony,civil unions are a secular legal document. Marriages join humans in the eye of God, civil unions confer legal rights. Saying they have something in common is admitting that marriage is a government contract instead of a religious one, a contention the church has rightfully fought against for decades. Therefore, this argument sounds more like a papal opinion than a decree from God.

Then there is the slippery slope argument. This says that same-sex civil unions could lead to same-sex marriage. However, slippery slope arguments are inherently logically invalid. How? Am example: the right to abortion (a bad thing) directly came from the right to medical privacy (a good thing). Does that mean we should not have medical privacy, just because it led to abortion? No, we should have just worded the 14th amendment differently. In the same way, what same-sex civil unions may or may not lead to is irrelevant. It just means we need to word the laws correctly. If, for instance, we allow them along with a constitutional amendment defining marriage, it could not be overturned by the supreme court. Since I highly doubt God would present us with logical fallacies, it seems apparent that this argument, too, comes from man instead of from God.

In conclusion, I feel that the church’s position on civil unions is a political opinion instead of a moral law, and therefore is not infallible,whether it its right or wrong. And, since I believe in giving our government as little power as possible over us (since the last thing want iliberals take over is a government with the power to control our everyday actions) I believe that the government should have no say so in who someone chooses to be with them at a hospital, have their possessions when they die, and all the other choices that come with a civil union, none of which involve religion in even the slightest manner.

Sin is sin

How does one participate in the sin of another person? We sin through another person’s actions by …

counsel
consent
provocation
praise or flattery
concealment
partaking
**silence
the defense of the ill done
**

 

[rossum]

The government has no right to redefine marriage. The government can abuse its authority but the solution to that is not what you seem to be advocating.

However, the government does have the right to define tax law, civil unions and many other things. Even with civil marriage, the government has allowed divorce, which is contrary to the Catholic version of marriage, and has disallowed more than one wife, which is contrary to the Moslem version of marriage.

While government does not have the right to redefine religious marriage, it does have the right to redefine civil marriage, and civil unions.

rossum

 

[ProVobis]

has disallowed more than one wife,

But doesn’t this conflict with the religious freedom issue? (Just being a devil’s advocate here.)

 

[fix]

However, the government does have the right to define tax law,

Ok, tax law can be redefined. How is that analgous to marriage?

civil unions and many other things.

If a so called civil union is simply a faux marriage then redefining it is not within their authority. Just like they cannot redfine math by judicial fiat.

Even with civil marriage, the government has allowed divorce, which is contrary to the Catholic version of marriage,

Civil divorce is not always a moral offense.

and has disallowed more than one wife, which is contrary to the Moslem version of marriage.

Natural marriage is not about polygamy. That is a deviation that should be prohibited.

While government does not have the right to redefine religious marriage, it does have the right to redefine civil marriage, and civil unions.

rossum

No, it has no right to redefine what is true. Marriage is marriage. We are not talking about religious ritual but natural marriage which predates the government.

 

[TimothyH]

Churches that perform/recognize/tolerate gay marriage always do so in the name of fighting injustice; those that do not, always do so in the name of morality. The strange thing about the CC, however, is that it *opposes *SSM … in the name of fighting injustice! I don’t know of any other church that argues against SSM on the grounds that it violates the rights of children.

Children have a right to be brought up in a family with both mother and father. It is an injustice to intentionally cause a child to be brought up in a family without a mother or father because a family with both a mother and father is their God given right.

There is no division between justice and morality. All sin is injustice.

The Catholic Church opposes same sex marriage because it is injustice, but also because it is sin. To tell people that sin is OK and thereby let them go to Hell is injustice. The Church cannot do that. Doing so is counter to the mission of the Church as established by Christ. The Church is prevented by the Holy Spirit from doing so. It is impossible for the Church to do so.

-Tim-

 

[djames99]

The civil authority is out of it’s jurisdiction and will be held accountable, both on the individual scale by what each member allowed or refuse to attempt to change, and again in community, that single entity form they asked God to bless. Our task is to distance ourselves from this. The civil authority to this point has simply formalized and documented the first occasion of sin of many for two individuals. The barriers are down, “The government says it’s OK, it must be legit”. A well honed conscience would not be tricked, and see it for what it really is.

What can be imputed to the individuals in invincible ignorance depends on what they know of True marriage, and their state of conscience, itself their responsibility to maintain so that it is in proper working order to reveal wrongs.

We know these unions are not a Holy Marriage, and definitely one that is not the foundation for begetting children or even sexual activity. That’s all we need to know.

While the civilian life holds to the promise “in God we trust”, then tampering with something he claims he defines and calls his own jurisdiction is a bit insincere and downright risky.

 

[rossum]

But doesn’t this conflict with the religious freedom issue? (Just being a devil’s advocate here.)

No, it means that a Moslem man can marry up to four wives in the Mosque, but only one of the wives is recognised by the state. Similarly for Fundamentalist Mormons with multiple wives.

What happens in the Mosque, Church or Temple is unchanged.

(but you knew that already)

rossum

 

[rossum]

Ok, tax law can be redefined. How is that analgous to marriage?

So you have no objection to two people who sign a certificate and make certain declarations in front of a Registrar being taxed as a couple? That sounds very like a Civil Union to me.

If a so called civil union is simply a faux marriage then redefining it is not within their authority. Just like they cannot redfine math by judicial fiat.

I disagree. They cannot redefine Catholic marriage, but they can redefine civil marriage, because civil marriage is defined by the government in the first place.

Natural marriage is not about polygamy. That is a deviation that should be prohibited.

Except for Solomon, David and various other Biblical patriarchs.

No, it has no right to redefine what is true. Marriage is marriage. We are not talking about religious ritual but natural marriage which predates the government.

You are incorrect here. There is no single “true marriage”. Marriage is not single a well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.

• Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
• Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
• Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
• Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
• Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
• Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
• Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
• Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008) = two adults.
• Marriage (California since November 2008) = 1 husband, 1 wife.

There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal entities.

The Catholic Church has authority over Catholic marriage. The government has authority over civil marriage. The two are already different, as with divorce.

rossum

 

[Rainaldo]

…In conclusion, I feel that the church’s position on civil unions is a political opinion instead of a moral law, and therefore is not infallible,whether it its right or wrong.

You ***feel ***that it’s an opinion? Okay, I feel your position is an opinion.

 

[Rainaldo]

Courts should not make laws , IMHO, that belong to natures God and of course Jewish and Christian principles of God’s laws.

God Bless

Then start a petition to decriminalize murder, incest, theft and fraud.

God bless.

 

[Rainaldo]

Children have a right to be brought up in a family with both mother and father. It is an injustice to intentionally cause a child to be brought up in a family without a mother or father because a family with both a mother and father is their God given right.

There is no division between justice and morality. All sin is injustice.

The Catholic Church opposes same sex marriage because it is injustice, but also because it is sin. To tell people that sin is OK and thereby let them go to Hell is injustice. The Church cannot do that. Doing so is counter to the mission of the Church as established by Christ. The Church is prevented by the Holy Spirit from doing so. It is impossible for the Church to do so.

-Tim-

Exactly, and that’s one of the major points of the CDF’s Considerations (vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html).

 

[Bill_7154]

There have been an untold number of threads about same-sex marriage, so I’m not even going to mention it, and I ask that no one else mention it to avoid the thread being detailed. I also ask that no politicians, political parties or elections be mentioned to avoid breaking the forum rules.

What are civil unions? They are not religious ceremonies. They do not imply that the two people involved will have children. In other words, they contain none of the reasons the church has for opposing same-sex marriage. They area purely legal document which converts rights on a person of your choosing, like the right to hospital visitation, right to automatic inheritance, etc.
The church claims that they mimic marriage, which IMGO is an insult to marriage. They have nothing in common with marriage. Marriage is a religious ceremony,civil unions are a secular legal document. Marriages join humans in the eye of God, civil unions confer legal rights. Saying they have something in common is admitting that marriage is a government contract instead of a religious one, a contention the church has rightfully fought against for decades.

I have said it before and will say it again, I firmly believe that marriage is exactly what you are saying it is, a religious ceremony joining a man and a woman in the eyes of God. And I also think that the government should have nothing to do with marriages. I also feel that to the degree that government ‘authorizes’ or ‘approves’, etc marriage it feels to me that this cheapens the sanctity of marriage. I also agree with you that government should have as little power over us as possible, I think they stick their nose in a lot of places that they don’t belong, and the special vows that a man and woman take under the eyes of God which joins them in marriage, which typically leads to the miracle the birth of human life and families is a very special thing. I think that it should be viewed that way and think that by having government ‘approve’ marriages or similar cheapens marriage.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[edwest2]

I have said it before and will say it again, I firmly believe that marriage is exactly what you are saying it is, a religious ceremony joining a man and a woman in the eyes of God. And I also think that the government should have nothing to do with marriages. I also feel that to the degree that government ‘authorizes’ or ‘approves’, etc marriage it feels to me that this cheapens the sanctity of marriage. I also agree with you that government should have as little power over us as possible, I think they stick their nose in a lot of places that they don’t belong, and the special vows that a man and woman take under the eyes of God which joins them in marriage, which typically leads to the miracle the birth of human life and families is a very special thing. I think that it should be viewed that way and think that by having government ‘approve’ marriages or similar cheapens marriage.

God Bless,
Bill

A few false statements there. From the Gettysburg Address:

“…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Government is put in place by the people. The constant, ongoing attempts here to make it a “them” versus “us” battle is just plain false. The US government knows what marriage is. It is the only way we get the next generation. In the sense that a couple gets a marriage license is not just approval but a true record of a marriage so as to keep continuity for their children, their property and for any claims or challenges made as to its validity. The government doesn’t force anybody to get a marriage license.

The latest immoral living period got a real boost in the late 1960s. From a Hippie friend of mine in the early 1970s: “I don’t need no piece of paper ta live with my ‘old lady.’” (And she was what? 22? Old lady - but Hippie-speak was programmed into people who grew up us I did).

Today: It’s let’s hand out benefits to any couple living together and having sex!!! Our time has come.

Benefits for:

Cohabitating couples.
Civil Unions.
Domestic partnerships.
Same-sex marriage.

Does any of the above not cheapen marriage by virtue of its separation of a cooperative and natural biological union where, since recorded history, it was made known who was the son of who and who was the father and the mother? And I’m not talking about the guy who has 3 kids with 3 different women, and leaves them all for a crummy apartment, a 40 ounce beer and a dog.

Mothers and fathers rear their own children. And that requires stability and time, not ‘imitation marriage,’ where anybody gets to walk out the door for whatever reason.

I heard the following while in a supermarket. A guy was filling the counters and someone who hadn’t seen him for a while said, “Hey. How you been doin’?”

“OK. I guess.”

“Hey, are you still with what’s her name?”

“Naw. She came up to me one day and said, ‘I don’t want to do this anymore,’ so I said, ‘OK. Bye.’”

“So how long were you and her…?”

“Two years.”

Or a friend of mine who works in the newspaper business. He told me about a young lady who kept talking about ‘her husband.’

So, one day, he casually asked her. “So, how long have you been married?”

She said, “Oh, we’re not married.”

He tried to explain his marriage to her but it was as if it didn’t matter. He tried to say marriage was for life, and that though he loved his wife, it could get hard sometimes.

So what happened? After ten years of playing ‘married couple,’ she walked into work one day and told him, “I decided to pack my bags and move out.” He didn’t say anything to her.

And the people who want same-sex civil unions, where do they go to get what they want? The Church? Nobody? They go to the same government that some say should get out of the marriage “”“business”". What a load of baloney.

Don’t be fooled my fellow Catholics, only judges and politicians are giving them what they want.

Peace,
Ed