Same sex marriage, but not in Church

[mcteague]

Why would Catholics object to the proposition that one could object to same sex marriage as a Catholic ceremony, but defend its inclusion as part of the secular world? In the same way that, although Catholics presumably believe that their faith is the correct one, most would defend the right of other religions to practice even if they vehemently disagreed with them. Supporting legalization of same sex marriage does not mean it has to be permitted inside the Church.
I can understand that for certain kinds of issues that separating the two is impossible for many. The abortion issue would be a good example. I would not expect Catholics to accept that its alright as long as it is not performed in Church. However gay marriage does not seem to be the kind of issue that would require supporting a particular public policy as requirement of living a Catholic life. One should be able to support its acceptance in the public sphere, but reject its inclusion as a Catholic ceremony

 

[ConstantineTG]

Unacceptable. The Catholic stance is a moral one, so its not merely a doctrinal issue within the Church, it affects the lives of all people. Same sex marriage is a poison to society and would affect all no matter whether the wedding itself happens. It also is a non-issue within the Church. No one who knows the faith and the Church wells believes that it will ever be accepted within the Church. So the issue really is do we allow same-sex marriage to poison the society at large? And the answer is no. Morality is for the entire society, not just Catholics. And that is what we Catholics are defending.

 

[davidv]

To be Catholic is to love Truth. Truth being the person of Jesus Christ. If one is to love Truth. lies cannot be tolerated. Calling the union of two person of the same gender a marriage is a lie. Lies harm those who express them as well as those around them.

The love cannot be compartmentalized into a separate world different than the one we must live, work and play in. It must permeate all facets of our lives.

 

[Alexander_Smith]

As I have said before, a gay “marriage” is not a true marriage. It is not right for the GLBT folks to demand we apply the term “marriage” to their unions. If they want to have unions, I don’t care, but they cannot call it marriage, because that’s not what it is.

 

[Rawb]

I too have wondered this. After all, we don’t attempt to make it illegal for protestants to celebrate what they think is The Lord’s Supper, which is more of a blaspheme and sacrilege than gay ‘marriage’. Yes we don’t recognize that it as an actual marriage, but we also don’t recognize protestant communions. Is there any difference between the two?

Furthermore, in the Old Testament, God was very willing to let people sin and suffer the repercussions of those sins. We see time and again that He warns, the people ignore, and then He allowed them the choice. It hurt them, as He told them it would, but He always allowed them the choice. Shouldn’t (or couldn’t) we take the same position here?

If you think I’m wrong I more than welcome correction, just be charitable. I’ve wondered often about this, and will freely admit I may be wrong. I’ve noticed too often when discussing homosexuality people go straight for ad hominems or just blunt rudeness, and I’ll just ignore you if that’s the case.

 

[Trebor135]

Unacceptable. The Catholic stance is a moral one, so its not merely a doctrinal issue within the Church, it affects the lives of all people. Same sex marriage is a poison to society and would affect all no matter whether the wedding itself happens. It also is a non-issue within the Church. No one who knows the faith and the Church wells believes that it will ever be accepted within the Church. So the issue really is do we allow same-sex marriage to poison the society at large? And the answer is no. Morality is for the entire society, not just Catholics. And that is what we Catholics are defending.

But although adultery is an evil, both morally and socially, it is not an offense under criminal or civil law. I have never heard a Christian advocate the banning of adultery, as abhorrent as it is. How do you feel?

This issue is something I also struggle with. I don’t believe that homosexual “marriage” is really marriage, but if the term “civil unions” or similar were used instead to designate what some would have the law call “gay marriage”, would this make the concept any more palatable? I mean, doesn’t this kerfuffle stem at least somewhat from the inequality homosexuals perceive in the law–whether or not under it their relationships would be called “marriages”–by its granting heterosexual couples certain rights which homosexuals would wish to enjoy? (I don’t know much at all about what these rights are, but I’m guessing tax accommodations and hospital-visitation rights would be included.)

I’m not staking out a strong position here, but the conflict between Christian morality and secular lawmaking has to be resolvable somehow, in such a way that we avoid both moral relativism and theocratic thinking.

 

[Zeemeermin]

I don’t think it should be called marriage, because that word means something unique. However, in the interest of justice, compassion, equality, and religious freedom, I have absolutely no problem with civil unions. As a Catholic, I may disagree with the gay lifestyle. But as an American, I have no right to impose my beliefs on other people. (And before someone brings up abortion, as they inevitably will, this does not involve murdering innocent human lives! Big difference.) Some of these gay couples want to make their relationships permanent and legal, gain certain privileges, rights, and tax benefits given to the married. As a secular matter only, I say go ahead.

 

[colmcille1]

I don’t think it should be called marriage, because that word means something unique. However, in the interest of justice, compassion, equality, and religious freedom, I have absolutely no problem with civil unions. As a Catholic, I may disagree with the gay lifestyle. But as an American, I have no right to impose my beliefs on other people. (And before someone brings up abortion, as they inevitably will, this does not involve murdering innocent human lives! Big difference.) ** Some of these gay couples want to make their relationships permanent and legal, gain certain privileges, rights, and tax benefits given to the married. As a secular matter only, I say go ahead./**QUOTE]

Hi Zeemeermin,
Would that it were as simple as that!
Let us be under no illusion here. The reason why the issue of gay “marriage” is so vehemently debated is because the gay agenda is a many-headed animal. The “marriage” issue is just another battlefront.
There is no need (as you fear) to bring in analogous arguments.
The gay agenda can be seen clearly. Once the secular ground has been won, how long do you reckon it will be before the religious front is tackled head-on?
No, we must fight gay “marriage” at every step. As previous posters have pointed out, this is an issue about fighting sin in the world.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[edwest2]

Why would Catholics object to the proposition that one could object to same sex marriage as a Catholic ceremony, but defend its inclusion as part of the secular world? In the same way that, although Catholics presumably believe that their faith is the correct one, most would defend the right of other religions to practice even if they vehemently disagreed with them. Supporting legalization of same sex marriage does not mean it has to be permitted inside the Church.
I can understand that for certain kinds of issues that separating the two is impossible for many. The abortion issue would be a good example. I would not expect Catholics to accept that its alright as long as it is not performed in Church. However gay marriage does not seem to be the kind of issue that would require supporting a particular public policy as requirement of living a Catholic life. One should be able to support its acceptance in the public sphere, but reject its inclusion as a Catholic ceremony

It’s been rejected in the public square, twice in California, but that doesn’t seem to mean anything. I don’t know any Catholic who is obedient to Church teaching who promotes “same sex marriage.”

Public policy? There is no public policy. And it would be a bad public policy. LGBT groups reject civil unions. They want the exact same equivalency between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage. It can’t happen. Two men are not the same as a man and a woman. The biology is complentary. The primary purpose of sex is reproduction. Period.

Same sex marriage is about turning gay sex into an institution. Right now, gay people can enter into any kind of relationship they want. But the moment it appears on a ballot, what are people supposed to do? Ignore it? Seriously, the people have made themselves heard. What more do you want?

God bless,
Ed

 

[Betterave]

I too have wondered this. After all, we don’t attempt to make it illegal for protestants to celebrate what they think is The Lord’s Supper, which is more of a blaspheme and sacrilege than gay ‘marriage’. Yes we don’t recognize that it as an actual marriage, but we also don’t recognize protestant communions. Is there any difference between the two?

Yes, Rawb, there are big differences. The correct understanding of the Lord’s Supper is essentially a matter of faith, meaning that God’s grace is required in order for our understanding to be enlightened in regard to it. The secular institution of marriage can be understood on the basis of reason. It should be obvious that marriage has always been understood to be between a man and a woman and that there is no defensible reason to claim that same-sex unions should be included in this institution.

Furthermore, in the Old Testament, God was very willing to let people sin and suffer the repercussions of those sins. We see time and again that He warns, the people ignore, and then He allowed them the choice. It hurt them, as He told them it would, but He always allowed them the choice. Shouldn’t (or couldn’t) we take the same position here?

Cain to God: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

 

[Rawb]

Yes, Rawb, there are big differences. The correct understanding of the Lord’s Supper is essentially a matter of faith, meaning that God’s grace is required in order for our understanding to be enlightened in regard to it. The secular institution of marriage can be understood on the basis of reason. It should be obvious that marriage has always been understood to be between a man and a woman and that there is no defensible reason to claim that same-sex unions should be included in this institution.

Could you expand on this? I think I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not quite sure.

Cain to God: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”

On an individual level I think I must agree; we should advise those who wish to sin or are in sin away from it. However is the legal process really the best way to accomplish this on a larger level? Is legalized morality really morality?

 

[Betterave]

Why would Catholics object to the proposition that one could object to same sex marriage as a Catholic ceremony, but defend its inclusion as part of the secular world? In the same way that, although Catholics presumably believe that their faith is the correct one, most would defend the right of other religions to practice even if they vehemently disagreed with them. Supporting legalization of same sex marriage does not mean it has to be permitted inside the Church.
I can understand that for certain kinds of issues that separating the two is impossible for many. The abortion issue would be a good example. I would not expect Catholics to accept that its alright as long as it is not performed in Church. However gay marriage does not seem to be the kind of issue that would require supporting a particular public policy as requirement of living a Catholic life. One should be able to support its acceptance in the public sphere, but reject its inclusion as a Catholic ceremony

Good question, but Catholics do not believe in a radical dichotomy between the public/secular sphere and the religious sphere, as you suggest. This fact is grounded in the fact that we don’t believe in a radical dichotomy between reason and faith, although there is a legitimate sphere of autonomy that pertains to each. The Church is a moral educator, but so is the state. It is impossible for a Catholic to accept that the state should positively reinforce corrupt moral norms.

p.s. Rawb, I hope this counts as a helpful expansion on my comment to you. There is an important difference between not legally prohibiting sin, and positively reinforcing it.

 

[rossum]

Unacceptable. The Catholic stance is a moral one, so its not merely a doctrinal issue within the Church, it affects the lives of all people.

What about divorce and adultery? They are both moral issues within the Church and affect a lot more people that same sex marriage does. The percentage of divorced people is far higher than the percentage of gay or lesbian people.

What is it about same sex marriage that causes these great ructions? There are other moral issues that are surely more important. How much more effective would campaigning against abortion have been if all the money that was spent campaigning for Proposition 8 had been spent instead on a pro-life campaign? Proposition 4 failed by 48% to 52% while Proposition 8 passed; was Proposition 8 really more important than Proposition 4?

rossum

 

[edwest2]

What about divorce and adultery? They are both moral issues within the Church and affect a lot more people that same sex marriage does. The percentage of divorced people is far higher than the percentage of gay or lesbian people.

What is it about same sex marriage that causes these great ructions? There are other moral issues that are surely more important. How much more effective would campaigning against abortion have been if all the money that was spent campaigning for Proposition 8 had been spent instead on a pro-life campaign? Proposition 4 failed by 48% to 52% while Proposition 8 passed; was Proposition 8 really more important than Proposition 4?

rossum

Please stop it. We know there are children still starving in India. There is no connection between this and gay marriage. The “more important” argument never deals with the issue at hand.

God bless,
Ed

 

[mcteague]

It’s been rejected in the public square, twice in California, but that doesn’t seem to mean anything. I don’t know any Catholic who is obedient to Church teaching who promotes “same sex marriage.”

Public policy? There is no public policy. And it would be a bad public policy. LGBT groups reject civil unions. They want the exact same equivalency between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage. It can’t happen. Two men are not the same as a man and a woman. The biology is complentary. The primary purpose of sex is reproduction. Period.

Same sex marriage is about turning gay sex into an institution. Right now, gay people can enter into any kind of relationship they want. But the moment it appears on a ballot, what are people supposed to do? Ignore it? Seriously, the people have made themselves heard. What more do you want?

The question is not whether gay marriage is good or not. It is also not what the purpose of sex is. We could debate these another time.
The question is why for this particular issue do some Catholics find it difficult to separate their largely private religious views from their views as citizens in the public sphere. There is great inconsistency in the application deemed to be required by the faith.
Do you stand out side bars and night clubs late at night with a sign saying “Repent Sinners. Fornicate no more”. Of course not. But we both know that many people in those places are looking for sex. And I don’t think any of those are seeking procreation.

We should remember that not to long ago in many places in America a marriage between blacks and whites was viewed in much the same way. It was illegal.

I do not think gay marriage should be shoved down anyone’s throat. That is why any church should be allowed to not perform it if it conflicts with their beliefs. But again the question is why opposition to it a civil liberty should be a requirement of being Catholic.

The principles behind " I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" Should be given the broadest possible sway

 

[Betterave]

What about divorce and adultery? They are both moral issues within the Church and affect a lot more people that same sex marriage does. The percentage of divorced people is far higher than the percentage of gay or lesbian people.

As I mentioned already: It is impossible for a Catholic to accept that the state should positively reinforce corrupt moral norms. This applies to adultery and divorce and ‘clubbing’ and fornication (and racial discrimination!) just as well as it does to ‘gay marriage.’

 

[edwest2]

The question is not whether gay marriage is good or not. It is also not what the purpose of sex is. We could debate these another time.
The question is why for this particular issue do some Catholics find it difficult to separate their largely private religious views from their views as citizens in the public sphere. There is great inconsistency in the application deemed to be required by the faith.
Do you stand out side bars and night clubs late at night with a sign saying “Repent Sinners. Fornicate no more”. Of course not. But we both know that many people in those places are looking for sex. And I don’t think any of those are seeking procreation.

We should remember that not to long ago in many places in America a marriage between blacks and whites was viewed in much the same way. It was illegal.

I do not think gay marriage should be shoved down anyone’s throat. That is why any church should be allowed to not perform it if it conflicts with their beliefs. But again the question is why opposition to it a civil liberty should be a requirement of being Catholic.

The principles behind " I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" Should be given the broadest possible sway

You don’t understand. Gay marriage is an outgrowth of the “Sexual Revolution” which was never about love. Catholics protested all of this but after a 40 year campaign to shut us up and to convince us to view sexuality in precisely the same way as the “SEX FOR FUN” advocates - same sex marriage advocates now say, “Look. You’re bad too. You’ve apparently stopped caring about other sexual ‘sins’ so why the big deal about this?”

First, gay marriage is not a civil liberty. It never was. It’s a recent invention.

In the 1960s, divorce was rare. And when it did happen, it was a scandal.
Abortion was rare and when it did happen, it was a scandal.
Catholics were taught to be modest. Teenage girls were required to wear skirts that covered the knees. When the mini-skirt appeared, it was a scandal.
Being a virgin before marriage was important.
Graphic pornography was hard to get.
There were Vice Squads.
You could be arrested for a lewd or obscene performance in public.

The clear goal was to bring the kind of sex secularists wanted into our neighborhood. We had to turn into them.

They had mistresses. They had to send them to Mexico for the occasional abortion. The Pill. What a great idea. I’ll make sure my girlfriend gets on it. Divorces are so messy and frowned upon, I’ll suggest it go to No-Fault.

And Catholics. All you do is listen to the Pope! And you’re sexually repressed. And you have no business telling other people how to live! Mind your own business!!

Oh, we had the right to say it all right, But We Were Wrong! (they said) The pornographers had the First Amendment right to produce porn. They had the First Amendment right to open strip clubs and sex clubs. And they had highly paid lawyers to fight religious nuts and people who tried to impose Censorship.

What you fail to understand is 40 years of social engineering. We’ll turn cohabitation with sex, divorce and even abortion into, Hey. What’s the big deal?

We’ll create TV shows where actors playing doctors have ‘just sex.’ Love? What’s that? Worried about AIDS? Don’t. Getting lots of sex is job one.

We’ll turn movies away from love and romance into just sex. Attractive actress? I know. She’ll play a hooker in her next movie. Or a new idea, she’ll be in a sex tape or get arrested for possession of illegal drugs. Which we would love to decriminalize.

And all I heard on the radio for years was “tame by today’s standards.” What standards? Who creates these standards? Are they written down anywhere?

I open up the local newspaper and see ads for “Wild Hearts.” The heart has zero to do with these ads. Just like the Swinger magazines from the 1970s - casual sex with no questions asked. On another forum where I am a moderator, the secularist and pagan posters have decided that porn is mainstream, just like a Supreme Court justice who decided we (we who?) are never going back to a time when abortion was illegal.

LGBT people can do whatever they want - right now. They don’t need permission from Catholics or anybody else. But when I saw gay marriage on the ballot, I had the exact same feeling that I had when I saw an Adult Bookstore in the 1970s for the first time. Who approved this? Who said this was OK? Who made this legal?

On a forum where I am a moderator, it is very clear what some people want. They do not want to Feel Bad - Ever, for anything called a sin. Ever. They don’t want to feel guilty or ashamed or sinful ever again. A few want a spirituality, as they call it, that is 100% nonjudgmental. Nobody can judge anybody and it is forbidden to forbid.

I am puzzled about certain questions here.

First, I ask anyone reading this to explain something - why was homosexuality removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973? Just be honest.

God bless,
Ed

 

[JDaniel]

I too have wondered this. After all, we don’t attempt to make it illegal for protestants to celebrate what they think is The Lord’s Supper, which is more of a blaspheme and sacrilege than gay ‘marriage’. Yes we don’t recognize that it as an actual marriage, but we also don’t recognize protestant communions. Is there any difference between the two?

Furthermore, in the Old Testament, God was very willing to let people sin and suffer the repercussions of those sins. We see time and again that He warns, the people ignore, and then He allowed them the choice. It hurt them, as He told them it would, but He always allowed them the choice. Shouldn’t (or couldn’t) we take the same position here?

If you think I’m wrong I more than welcome correction, just be charitable. I’ve wondered often about this, and will freely admit I may be wrong. I’ve noticed too often when discussing homosexuality people go straight for ad hominems or just blunt rudeness, and I’ll just ignore you if that’s the case.

Rawb, do you not know, or understand, that Christ created this Church and promised that it would not be led astray. So, you think that the church has been led astray? You think Jesus has not been there, in spirit, leading the way? All this time?

God bless,
jd

 

[JohnCS]

If I purpsofully allow my sister and her boyfriend stay in the same bed when they stay at my house, I am sinning by supporting or contributing to their sinful behavior. The same applies here. To not speak up or to actively advocate for laws that help make it easier for people to sin is a sin. For those of you who are “compassion” junkies who say we need to be good Christians with compassion for these people, so we should just let them do what they want, St. Thomas Aquinas hit that nail on the head: "*the sentiment of compassion only becomes a virtue when it is regulated by reason. Without this regulation, compassion is only passion. Like all passions, compassion in this case is a powerful but irrational inclination, and therefore a potentially dangerous one since it can favor not only good, but also evil. To feel pity at the sight of someone’s sufferings is normal. However, to act without prudent analysis may lead to unintended harm *(Defending a Higher Law, 2004).
Lastly, it is also important because once a same sex union is protected by the state, then it will be illegal to “discriminate” against them. In other words, our charities, groups, organizations, parishes, etc will have to discriminate because if they hired someone in a same sex union, the employer would have to pay benefits and therefore be condoning with the same sex union. Just because the Church doesn’t perform the ceramonies does not mean that it will be protected agaisnt it’s rules and influence everywhere else. As was seen in DC when same sex couples wanted to adopt from Catholic adoption agencies. It was either, go along with the sin, or shut down. They shut down.

God bless,

John

 

[Rawb]

Rawb, do you not know, or understand, that Christ created this Church and promised that it would not be led astray. So, you think that the church has been led astray? You think Jesus has not been there, in spirit, leading the way? All this time?

God bless,
jd

Even if you didn’t mean to, you come across as hostile, judgmental, and rude. You should watch your tone. You come very close to asking if I am even Catholic. Of course I know these things and hold them dear. I abide by every teaching of The Church, believe in and defend them. What I do not understand is your connection between these two areas of Christ guiding His Church and secular “marriage”. Please enlighten me, if you can do so without coming across as patronizing and condescending.