Same Sex Marriage?

[fix]

Kevin, I agree with the premise of your argument. Federal Laws cannot be made based on one religious belief over another and that is what the Supreme Court will eventually rule on this issue. Marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman is a religious belief which has been adopted by human society for several thousand years. However, cultures change and the US Constitution is a living document that is in part interpreted based on the civil rights of any given community of a time period. Gay marriage has become a civil rights issue. Denying gays unions that have the same benefits as heterosexual couples is unconstitutional. Whether or not it is called a “marriage” is in my opinion semantics. If gays want to call their unions a marriage it harms no one. Catholics need to be far more concerned with no fault divorce and multiple remarriages. This is what destroys families and not gay marriage.

As a Catholic I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. But this belief is based on my faith. As a social justice issue I am concerned with matters that actually harm society and conservatives largely ignore these issues in favor of issues that cause little or no harm to society. As I pointed out before, divorce is too easy to obtain and Catholics should be pro active in securing marriage as a life time union by requiring mandatory marriage counseling, and perhaps as much as a 5 year waiting period before the divorce is granted. Catholics should be pro-active in making adultery and fornication illegal in every state. The whole problem with conservative Catholics is summed up in Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:24, “YOU BLIND GUIDES! YOU strain out a gnat to swallow a camel. Read Matthew 23 because this chapter is Jesus explicitly rebuking conservatives of his time.

Peace,
David

The Church disagrees with you.

 

[Monkey1976]

Kevin, I agree with the premise of your argument. Federal Laws cannot be made based on one religious belief over another and that is what the Supreme Court will eventually rule on this issue. Marriage defined as a union between a man and a woman is a religious belief which has been adopted by human society for several thousand years…

If marriage being only between male and female is just “a religious belief”, then can you explain why it was held to be so even in those countries where religions of any kind were outlawed (Soviet Union, the old Warsaw Pact countries, China, North Korea, Cuba…)? Just because we hold a truth as part of our Faith doesn’t make it any less of a truth. We believe that murder is a mortal sin. Should all laws against it be overturned because it is a “religious belief” that murder is wrong?

However, cultures change and the US Constitution is a living document that is in part interpreted based on the civil rights of any given community of a time period. Gay marriage has become a civil rights issue. Denying gays unions that have the same benefits as heterosexual couples is unconstitutional.

There is a major difference here between actual civil rights and what the “Gay lobby” is pushing for. This is a group that is defined exclusively by their behavior and nothing else. That behavior is something in which they freely choose to indulge. A woman has no choice regarding the fact that she is a woman and an African-American man has no choice regarding the fact that he is African-American. Nobody is holding a gun to these people’s heads and forcing them to engage in homosexual activity. Since when does one’s behavior make one a “protected class”?

Whether or not it is called a “marriage” is in my opinion semantics. If gays want to call their unions a marriage it harms no one. Catholics need to be far more concerned with no fault divorce and multiple remarriages. This is what destroys families and not gay marriage

Standing on a castle wall, you see 1000 people with hammers trying to break it down. Further off, driving toward the wall at breakneck speed, is a tank. Which threat should be addressed first? Yes, no-fault divorce needs to be eliminated. Yes, we need to make “until death us do part” have meaning again. But right now, there’s something bigger to deal with.

As a Catholic I believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. But this belief is based on my faith. As a social justice issue I am concerned with matters that actually harm society and conservatives largely ignore these issues in favor of issues that cause little or no harm to society. As I pointed out before, divorce is too easy to obtain and Catholics should be pro active in securing marriage as a life time union by requiring mandatory marriage counseling, and perhaps as much as a 5 year waiting period before the divorce is granted. Catholics should be pro-active in making adultery and fornication illegal in every state. The whole problem with conservative Catholics is summed up in Jesus’ words in Matthew 23:24, “YOU BLIND GUIDES! YOU strain out a gnat to swallow a camel. Read Matthew 23 because this chapter is Jesus explicitly rebuking conservatives of his time.

Peace,
David

Being Catholic doesn’t mean that we simply hold a belief. We are called to act on those beliefs and be a light to the world. If you truly believe that marriage is the exclusive domain of a man and a woman, then act like it. [BIBLEDRB]James 2:11-14[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Kevin_B]

Holding to an ideal for martiage is the only way to save what marriage was intended to be from the beginning.

What, exactly, was government-sponsored marriage originally intended to be? It obviously wasn’t intended to be a religious ceremony, since religious marriages already exist.Why are you trying to turn a legal document into a religious ceremony?

The classification matters greater if we want to intelligently draw conclusions rather than arbitrarily grabbing at different classes to force a point.

You are arbitrarily choosing classes based on gender. I’m choosing them based on sterility.

“Anyone who can have children can get married. Anyone who cannot have children cannot get married”. Please explain how society is benefited by letting sterile heterosexual couples marry.

Social class is not the issue. Grouping of like items in the issue.

So let’s group like items.
Group 1: couples that can produce children
Group 2: couples that cannot produce children.

You want to let some people in group 2 marry, but not others, and have yet to explain what benefits that brings.

That some heterosexual couples are sterile does not negate the fact they belong to the right group of people that can be married as opposed to a group that can never be married.

Of course it does. If marriage benefits are supposed to exist to convince people to have children, then sterile couples, regardless of what group they belong to, do not deserve those benefits.

This is a novel and modern fantasy.History, Tradition, and the constant teaching of the Church rejects these facile arguments.

Lol.Just because something has been taught for a long time doesn’t make it correct.
Since Paul made the word up, how does the Church know what it means in the first place? Even claiming to know for sure the definition of the word is a false teaching, since it is an invented word. If I used the word “gobberbob”, and for two thousand years you told everyone you knew what it means, then you were lying.
The best we can do is guess what Paul meant by the word.

If marriage being only between male and female is just “a religious belief”, then can you explain why it was held to be so even in those countries where religions of any kind were outlawed (Soviet Union, the old Warsaw Pact countries, China, North Korea, Cuba…)? Just because we hold a truth as part of our Faith doesn’t make it any less of a truth. We believe that murder is a mortal sin. Should all laws against it be overturned because it is a “religious belief” that murder is wrong?

Of course not. But all laws have to have “another reason” other than “my religion doesn’t like this” to be illegal. No one has yet to give a good reason as to why two people of the same gender can’t go to a justice of the peace and get “married”.

There is a major difference here between actual civil rights and what the “Gay lobby” is pushing for. This is a group that is defined exclusively by their behavior and nothing else. That behavior is something in which they freely choose to indulge. A woman has no choice regarding the fact that she is a woman and an African-American man has no choice regarding the fact that he is African-American. Nobody is holding a gun to these people’s heads and forcing them to engage in homosexual activity. Since when does one’s behavior make one a “protected class”?

I don’t know which I’ve heard more, that “homosexuality is defined by behavior”, or that “there is no such thing as macro-evolution”.

Homosexuality is defined by who you are sexually attracted to.
Not all homosexuals have homosexual sex.
Therefore, homosexuality is not defined by behavior.

I mean, it’s such a blatantly wrong statement, yet people use it all the time. It’s embarrassing. That’s like saying black people are defined by listening to rap music.

Standing on a castle wall, you see 1000 people with hammers trying to break it down. Further off, driving toward the wall at breakneck speed, is a tank. Which threat should be addressed first? Yes, no-fault divorce needs to be eliminated. Yes, we need to make “until death us do part” have meaning again. But right now, there’s something bigger to deal with.

As Catholics, we are “required” to vote against same-sex marriage. Supposedly, this “requirement” comes from God. Are you telling me God doesn’t want us to vote against no-fault divorce just because it isn’t a hot topic at the moment?

I am sure the gay lobby would LOVE to learn this, because it means all they need to do is create a bigger moral issue, and we will forget all about gay marriage. Maybe they need to start pushing for polygamy, and we will give up on the gay marriage battle to fight that one.

Your argument only makes sense if men, not God, are in charge of telling us how to vote. I’m sure God would notice such an enormous logical loophole such as “all they need to do to have us forget about gay marriage is start pushing something worse”. At least, I hope He would.

Being Catholic doesn’t mean that we simply hold a belief. We are called to act on those beliefs and be a light to the world. If you truly believe that marriage is the exclusive domain of a man and a woman, then act like it. [BIBLEDRB]James 2:11-14[/BIBLEDRB]

I believe that the SACRAMENT of marriage is the domain of men and women.

I believe that a document signed in front of a justice of the peace, whether it be called a marriage or a civil union, is not a religious contract and therefore my religious beliefs have no more bearing on it than on the capital gains tax.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What, exactly, was government-sponsored marriage originally intended to be? It obviously wasn’t intended to be a religious ceremony, since religious marriages already exist.Why are you trying to turn a legal document into a religious ceremony?

Actually, I am arguing that marriage is a biologically based reality with the purpose of bringing new life into existence and supporting that life through its most vulnerable times.

This is not a religious issue. Read my posts. My claim is that the only rightful claim that governments have to regulating marriage is to protect vulnerable third parties (children) that were not part of the original agreement but can only result from heterosexual partnership.

You are arbitrarily choosing classes based on gender. I’m choosing them based on sterility.

“Anyone who can have children can get married. Anyone who cannot have children cannot get married”. Please explain how society is benefited by letting sterile heterosexual couples marry.

So let’s group like items.
Group 1: couples that can produce children
Group 2: couples that cannot produce children.

You want to let some people in group 2 marry, but not others, and have yet to explain what benefits that brings.

Actually, you are overlooking completely the rights of children, if you wish to make groupings based upon rights. No one is depriving homosexual couples from engaging in a particular kind of behaviour. That is not at stake here.

However, children are being deprived of their natural right to have a mother and father, if marriage is redefined. Sterile couples who choose to marry and adopt can and do provide adopted children with a mother and father. Same sex “couples” are unable to do so.

 

[Monkey1976]

What, exactly, was government-sponsored marriage originally intended to be? It obviously wasn’t intended to be a religious ceremony, since religious marriages already exist.Why are you trying to turn a legal document into a religious ceremony?

Because “government-sponsored” marriage originally turned a “religious ceremony” into a legal document. Marriage as an institution predates all government. Governments simply recognized that preexisting institution by giving legal protections to it.

You are arbitrarily choosing classes based on gender. I’m choosing them based on sterility.

No, we’re choosing classes based on sex, because that is what is at issue. Gay “marriage” advocates claim that same-sex relationships are no different than heterosexual relationships. We are showing that their claim is false using the same two classes.

“Anyone who can have children can get married. Anyone who cannot have children cannot get married”. Please explain how society is benefited by letting sterile heterosexual couples marry.

Because, barring complete removal of the gonads, there is no 100% guarantee that a heterosexual couple is sterile. Personally, I know two couples who were told by several doctors that they were sterile. I’m godfather to the son of one of them, and the other couple just announced that their second child is on the way. For homosexual couples, sterility is 100% guaranteed in all cases.

So let’s group like items.
Group 1: couples that can produce children
Group 2: couples that cannot produce children.

You want to let some people in group 2 marry, but not others, and have yet to explain what benefits that brings.

All heterosexual couples, by the simple nature of their being male and female, are inherently capable of producing children and raising them as mother and father. That this does not happen in 100% of cases is irrelevant, because even a child adopted by a couple who is indeed sterile will have a mother and father. All homosexual couples, by nature of their being male and male or female and female, are inherently incapable of producing children and raising them as mother and father. This is a simple biological fact.

Of course it does. If marriage benefits are supposed to exist to convince people to have children, then sterile couples, regardless of what group they belong to, do not deserve those benefits.

And they don’t receive the additional benefits attached to having children unless they adopt. The benefits legally attached to marriage itself are given because the couple has - as far as the law is concerned - accepted the possibility of children and is willing to provide a stable home for them and raise them with a mother and father. Those benefits serve to make it easier for the couple to do so.

Lol.Just because something has been taught for a long time doesn’t make it correct.

But when the exact same thing has been affirmed and reaffirmed down through the centuries by EVERY culture - not just the Church, or western culture, but even pre-contact America - one can be reasonably sure that it is true.

Since Paul made the word up, how does the Church know what it means in the first place? Even claiming to know for sure the definition of the word is a false teaching, since it is an invented word. If I used the word “gobberbob”, and for two thousand years you told everyone you knew what it means, then you were lying.
The best we can do is guess what Paul meant by the word.

That’s only true if you assume that Paul never told another living soul how that word was to be understood. The fact that it appears in his letter to a church indicates that those who received the letter would understand exactly what he meant. That meaning has been maintained throughout the history of the Church.

Of course not. But all laws have to have “another reason” other than “my religion doesn’t like this” to be illegal. No one has yet to give a good reason as to why two people of the same gender can’t go to a justice of the peace and get “married”.

How about the propagation of children which allow for the future of a society? The provision of a mother and father? The fact that legal same-sex “marriage” is unrecorded throughout all human history, even in cultures that had no contact with Christianity and those that actively encouraged homosexual behavior? This last point placed the onus squarely on those who advocate for same-sex “marriage” to give an EXTREMELY good reason as to why it should exist. So far, every reason given has been a wordy variation on “I want it”.

(cont)

 

[Monkey1976]

(cont from previous)

I don’t know which I’ve heard more, that “homosexuality is defined by behavior”, or that “there is no such thing as macro-evolution”.

Homosexuality is defined by who you are sexually attracted to.
Not all homosexuals have homosexual sex.
Therefore, homosexuality is not defined by behavior.

I can play this game too:

Pedophilia is defined by who you are sexually attracted to
Not all pedophiles have pedophiliac sex
Therefore, pedophilia is not defined by behavior

Does that mean pedophiles should be extended the same privileges that gay activists are demanding?

I mean, it’s such a blatantly wrong statement, yet people use it all the time. It’s embarrassing. That’s like saying black people are defined by listening to rap music.

Then you might want to let the APA know about that. In their amicus brief “In re Marriage Cases” - which supports same-sex “marriage” - list several criteria (nonsexual physical affection, shared goals and values, mutual support, and ongoing commitment) of “intimate personal relationships”. These criteria, however, are listed as being “In addition to sexual behavior”.

We’re using the standard set by the “gay community” itself.

If I so chose, I could - of my own free will - choose to exclusively engage in sexual behavior with members of my own sex. Please explain how such a decision does NOT make me “homosexual”.

There are also several members of these forums who suffer from same-sex attraction, but have freely chosen to either remain celibate or enter into heterosexual relationships. Please explain how these people ARE “homosexual”.

A person’s race is an immutable characteristic of their body that can never be changed. The fact that there exist people who have made the choice to live heterosexual lives means that homosexuality is not an immutable characteristic.

In any case, do you honestly think that those who enter into a same-sex “marriage” will not engage in homosexual behavior?

As Catholics, we are “required” to vote against same-sex marriage. Supposedly, this “requirement” comes from God. Are you telling me God doesn’t want us to vote against no-fault divorce just because it isn’t a hot topic at the moment?

I am sure the gay lobby would LOVE to learn this, because it means all they need to do is create a bigger moral issue, and we will forget all about gay marriage. Maybe they need to start pushing for polygamy, and we will give up on the gay marriage battle to fight that one.

Your argument only makes sense if men, not God, are in charge of telling us how to vote. I’m sure God would notice such an enormous logical loophole such as “all they need to do to have us forget about gay marriage is start pushing something worse”. At least, I hope He would.

You know the saying, “God proposes, man disposes”? Yes, God wants us to fight both. He also recognizes that we are human - there’s only so much we can do, so we need to put our efforts where they will be most effective. When one fights a battle, one confronts the greatest threat first. Did David take on the entire Philistine army at once? No, he fought their strongest warrior first. Only when Goliath was beaten did he destroy the rest of the army.

I believe that the SACRAMENT of marriage is the domain of men and women.

I believe that a document signed in front of a justice of the peace, whether it be called a marriage or a civil union, is not a religious contract and therefore my religious beliefs have no more bearing on it than on the capital gains tax.

This kind of doublethink astounds me. Either your religion is true or it isn’t. If it is true, then God is the God of the universe, and His moral teachings are true for everyone. If His moral teachings aren’t true for everyone, then He isn’t the God of the Universe. If He isn’t the God of the Universe, then there would exist laws which limited His actions, implying a lawgiver above Him. If there is a lawgiver above Him, then why bother worshiping Him as God? People who say, “X is against my religion, and I’m personally against it, but it’s not my place to tell people not to do X” are placing another lawgiver above God: Society.

 

[fix]

You are arbitrarily choosing classes based on gender. I’m choosing them based on sterility.

“Anyone who can have children can get married. Anyone who cannot have children cannot get married”. Please explain how society is benefited by letting sterile heterosexual couples marry.

So let’s group like items.
Group 1: couples that can produce children
Group 2: couples that cannot produce children.

You want to let some people in group 2 marry, but not others, and have yet to explain what benefits that brings.

Of course it does. If marriage benefits are supposed to exist to convince people to have children, then sterile couples, regardless of what group they belong to, do not deserve those benefits.

Lol.Just because something has been taught for a long time doesn’t make it correct.
Since Paul made the word up, how does the Church know what it means in the first place? Even claiming to know for sure the definition of the word is a false teaching, since it is an invented word. If I used the word “gobberbob”, and for two thousand years you told everyone you knew what it means, then you were lying.
The best we can do is guess what Paul meant by the word.

Just because some current homosexual apologists want everyone to think the Church was wrong for 2000 years does not make it so. We have common sense, the natural law, logic, common tradition, and biology on our side. You have propaganda on your side.

The phoney argument comparing homosexual acts with heterosexual acts is absurd. Heterosexual acts are ordered as designed by nature. Homosexual acts are deviant. That every single heterosexual act does not end in conception in no way makes it equal to some deviant act. No philosophical proof is needed. It is as logical as comparing the marital act with driving a car. Nothing in common.

 

[Bookcat]

catholic.com/radio/shows/the-secular-argument-for-traditional-marriage-7967