Same Sex Marriage?

[Silent_Knight]

You are not allowed to question a person’s religion. If they say they are Catholic, you have to accept it.

If you have a problem with them identifying as Catholics, but posting otherwise, report it to the mods.

A little trigger happy on the removal of my comment, qui est ce.

I don’t think you read what I was typing, or you seem to have missed the point? I’m a bit confused with your reply. I am not talking about anyone particular on this forum. I never ONCE questioned anyone’s religion on this forum!

If someone says they are Catholic but they live their life as an atheist or something else and go against Catholic teachings, I’m not allowed to discuss it because they will always be a Catholic no matter what? This is the part I don’t understand when it comes to removing my comment.

I made a general statement not about someone here on these forums. I am talking about people who are say they are Catholic but live their lives on their own terms, don’t ever go to church, etc.

I fail to understand the reasoning in removing my comment. Please fully read it next time instead of jumping to conclusion.

Because it goes against church teaching. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. You may be a Catholic who has fallen out of communion with the Church, but there is no such thing as “ex-Catholic”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=722950

Kevin, I never once said anything about “ex-Catholic”. They may be Catholic, but they are not living as one, they are hypocrites. It’s a simple statement, would you argue they aren’t hypocrites?

I don’t know what it is, but I find on this site some people often give confusing replies and don’t really read what is being said.

Post #103?

Peter, no… not Post #103, it was before that and it was removed. I assume because I mentioned Obama and those Catholics who chose to vote for him and his obvious non Catholic agenda.

 

[Monkey1976]

That is true.

It is also true that only couples that involve two humans can produce offspring. In fact, any claim you make about “heterosexual couples” can also be made about “couples between two humans”.

So long as those two humans are male and female.

Only couples between two humans can produce offspring.

So long as those two humans are male and female.

Only heterosexual couples can produce offspring.

True.

Some couples between two humans are unable to produce offspring.

True

Some heterosexual couples are unable to produce offspring.

True, but that doesn’t negate the fact that a male and a female - that is, a heterosexual couple - are required for offspring to be produced.

You claim that all heterosexual couples should get benefits just because the vast majority can produce offspring.

Not just me, or just the posters on this board, but the vast bulk of human history.

I claim that all couples between two humans should get benefits just because the vast majority can produce offspring.

So I should be able claim any random person on the planet as my “spouse” - regardless of any restrictions - and gain these benefits?

If you can give benefits to the minority of heterosexual couples that can’t produce offspring, then I can give benefits to the minority of couples between two humans that can’t produce offspring.

The benefit isn’t assigned to two random persons, it is assigned to a particular pairing of persons where that particular type of pairing is known to produce children under normal circumstances.

The Roman empire was immoral.
The Roman empire collapsed.
What evidence do you have that one caused the other?

This isn’t about what caused the Roman empire to collapse, it’s about the fact that even at the height of their depravity, there was never legal recognition of same-sex “marriage”, because one of the natural ends of marriage under normal circumstances is the generation of children.

Sorry, maybe I was not clear. I’m not saying that at all. I just disagree with the Church on the responsibility of government.

The church believes government’s job is to promote morality.
I believe the government’s job is to only protect its citizens from immediate threats to their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

The idea that “pursuit of happiness” somehow means that we can do whatever we want is simply selfish thinking. Even a prisoner at Dachau was free to “pursue happiness”. By the logic of homosexual “marriage”, the government is hindering my pursuit of happiness by not extending me the benefit that Alaskan residents receive from profit-sharing on the pipeline simply because I don’t live in Alaska, and this is wrong.

Since legalizing a government contract between two people of the same gender does not threaten any of these, I do no believe it is our governments responsibility to forbid it.

But why should the government spend money to support these “contracts” that provide nothing in return?

I agree 100pct with the Church that homosexual marriage is a matter of morals.I just disagree with them on what the function of government should be.

And since “what is the function of government” is not within the realm of the church’s infallibility, I am free to disagree with them.

What, then, is the “function of government” if not the promotion of an orderly - and, by extension, moral - society?

 

[Stephen168]

Meaning a marriage between two statues?

statuary |ˈsta ch oōˌerē|
noun
sculpture consisting of statues; statues regarded collectively : fragments of broken statuary | classical statuary.

Whoops! I forget the third ‘t.’ I meant statutory: enacted, created, or regulated by statute. In this case, when the government creates a legal fiction.

 

[Slavonic]

If the state should stay out of the bedrooms of its citizens, then the state has no reason to redefine legislation concerning laws of marriage which were set up to promote the positive good of a mechanism by which new citizens come into existence. That is the only stake the state should, morally and legally, have regarding marriage.

Under this idea of the state promoting the mechanism by which new citizens come into existence, how does the the sate handle children born of parents who are not married?

So I should be able claim any random person on the planet as my “spouse” - regardless of any restrictions - and gain these benefits?

The benefit isn’t assigned to two random persons, it is assigned to a particular pairing of persons where that particular type of pairing is known to produce children under normal circumstances.

If that random person is willing to enter the contract with you and it not forbidden under the current marriage laws, then yes. It is possible for any random male and any random female to produce a child. Yet those two are not necessarily married. What is missing here is the relationship. It is the relationship and bonding that make a marriage. I fail to see how doing something any random male and female can possibly do makes marriage distinct.

But why should the government spend money to support these “contracts” that provide nothing in return?

If you really see that little value of LGBT couples in society, then take comfort in knowing the state can collect fees when issuing the marriage and thus those LGBT couple can contribute something to society. Let that, in your mind, count as the contribution.

 

[mangy_dog]

So much tip-toeing through the eggshells,

There is nothing normal or natural about active homosexuality usurping the terminology and status of Marriage, as sanctified by Jesus Christ himself in the wedding at Cana.

There is no such thing as “same sex marriage”. Same sex abomination! now that’s more like it.
It is the same abomination that has crept and slimed it’s way into Anglican and Episcopalian churches and is standing in “their holy place”. It is the abomination that causes desolation and is working it’s way into our conception of “normal” and “natural” social conscience.
If modern society here and abroad continues on this hellbent path, we will live to see the same abomination that causes desolation and apostasy in the American churches.

God help us and may God rebuke this doctrine of demons plagueing our country, our youth, and the Christian way of life.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Under this idea of the state promoting the mechanism by which new citizens come into existence, how does the the sate handle children born of parents who are not married?

By holding them both to be responsible for the welfare and well-being of the child until s/he is of age and by stiff penalties for negligence.

If that random person is willing to enter the contract with you and it not forbidden under the current marriage laws, then yes. It is possible for any random male and any random female to produce a child. Yet those two are not necessarily married. What is missing here is the relationship. It is the relationship and bonding that make a marriage. I fail to see how doing something any random male and female can possibly do makes marriage distinct.

To be consistent, then, let’s make theft, assault, rape and murder all legal because it is very easy for any random person to, for example, take a gun or knife and kill another. The fact that it is relatively easy to carry out an activity is one reason for the law to be involved in monitoring it, along with the fact that the lives of young citizens are currently at the whim of irresponsible engagers in the act. Of course, the state actively promotes that negligence by making abortion and contraception the right of the irresponsible.

I have said it before, if the same attitude that is taken towards procreation were applied to a regulated activity such as driving, criminal recklessness would be legal so long as the victims of traffic accidents were quietly and cleanly disposed of and not left to mess up roadways. We have a very peculiar attitude when it comes to sexual ethics. Clean and silent disposition of the victims of sexual sins has made sexual irresponsibility a fashion and a right in modern western culture. The worst part of it is that even otherwise moral individuals who would not think of doing so themselves see no problem allowing others to get away with it.

If you really see that little value of LGBT couples in society, then take comfort in knowing the state can collect fees when issuing the marriage and thus those LGBT couple can contribute something to society. Let that, in your mind, count as the contribution.

It all, apparently, comes down to the economics, then?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Whoops! I forget the third ‘t.’ I meant statutory: enacted, created, or regulated by statute. In this case, when the government creates a legal fiction.

I figured that, but with our culture in the state it’s in, who knows if someone might not advocate for statuary marriage. After all, who are we to interfere if two loving statues want to commit to each other for life? It ought to be their right, after all, and discriminatory of us to think otherwise.

 

[davidmlamb]

There is no such thing as “the marriage business.” Anyone see same-sex marriage at the voting booth? Who put it there? Why? Why does anybody need anybody else’s permission to live how they want?

I suggest you visit the marriage equality web site. Homosexual persons want nothing less than the word marriage as the name for their living arrangement.

Peace,
Ed

I agree Ed. Catholics need to be more concerned with their own affairs. They whine a cry that their religious freedoms are being taken away over contraception while at the same time they want to trample on the liberties of others outside the Church. You cannot have it both ways. Catholics need to take Saint Paul’s advise and work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. We are not called to be police but to be righteouss.

Peace,

David

 

[fix]

I agree Ed. Catholics need to be more concerned with their own affairs. They whine a cry that their religious freedoms are being taken away over contraception while at the same time they want to trample on the liberties of others outside the Church. You cannot have it both ways. Catholics need to take Saint Paul’s advise and work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. We are not called to be police but to be righteouss.

Peace,

David

We are called to be in the world. There is no way we can be faithful if we hid our faith.

 

[Monkey1976]

I agree Ed. Catholics need to be more concerned with their own affairs. They whine a cry that their religious freedoms are being taken away over contraception while at the same time they want to trample on the liberties of others outside the Church. You cannot have it both ways. Catholics need to take Saint Paul’s advise and work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. We are not called to be police but to be righteouss.

Peace,

David

We are also called to let people know when they are sinning in a clear and public manner. Look up “fraternal correction” - it’s one of the seven spiritual works of mercy.

 

[JontheMaronite]

I agree Ed. Catholics need to be more concerned with their own affairs. They whine a cry that their religious freedoms are being taken away over contraception while at the same time they want to trample on the liberties of others outside the Church. You cannot have it both ways. Catholics need to take Saint Paul’s advise and work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. We are not called to be police but to be righteouss.

Peace,

David

David,

Catholics can and must contribute to discussion in the public square!

In regards to trampling on liberties of others, I would say nothing is farther from the truth. SSM advocates claim it is a matter of equality and expanding the categories of people who may enter into marriage.

But that only is true if their revisionist definition of marriage rings true. So we need to ask the question of what marriage in fact is, before we can decide on the couples and types of relationships eligible to be deemed “marriage”. “Equality” is a bland and meaningless term in itself. Kids can’t marry parents, relatives can’t marry each other, and under the argument of marriage “equality”, those groups of people are being unjustly discriminated against. Some SSM advocates would claim that under their definition of marriage, these parties and type of union aren’t eligible for marriage for certain reasons. But their premises of marriage lack a crucial component and their definition therefore is fundamentally unsound, and they would rather steer clear from defining it.

Marriage is more than a consentual and emotional agreement between two adults, like companionship, it is a comprehensive union. A union which covers the many planes or levels of human nature and our complexity. A union which is both bodily through the participation of reproductive parts (incomplete in themselves) in an act to realize the biological reality of the reproductive process (the historically recognized “consumation of a marriage”, hence coitus is called the marital act), as well as a mental and emotional union, of commitment, mutual love, and selfless sacrifice.

There is no liberty for those who want to name homosexual unions as marriages, without radically changing the definition and meaning of marriage and reducing it to consentual and committed companionships which are meaningless to the state and which can be further revised, once the biological basis of the comprehensive union in marriage is removed as well as the purpose or fruit of the marital union in the offspring. Without openess to children and the biological nature of the unitive act, as some SSM marriage advocates, polygamists, swingers, etc. realize and press on in their efforts, such a distorted conception of marriage fails to support and thereby removes the reasons for commitment and exclusivity as well. Those aspects are secondary to the main aspect of marriage as a comprehensive (and therefore necessarily heterosexual) union

Heterosexual unions are the ONLY possible unions that meet all these aspects of a comprehensive union. Hence, marriage, by its very definition, is confined to heterosexual unions.

 

[davidmlamb]

We are also called to let people know when they are sinning in a clear and public manner. Look up “fraternal correction” - it’s one of the seven spiritual works of mercy.

That only applies to those in the Church and not those outside the Church; Saint Paul addressed this when he said, *“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?” *1 Cor 5:12. We do not show spiritual works of mercy when we force our beliefs on those outside the Church. We show them mercy when we show them kindness, sacrifice and love at the expense of our own lives, which is becoming of a Saint. Mother Teresa of Calcutta was a good example. She won over the hearts of people to Christ not by forcing her beliefs on them but giving her life for them. Lay down your life by what you do for those outside the Church and you will win them over for Christ. Force your beliefs on them by taking away their liberty makes you the oppressor. This is why our forefathers wanted separation of Church and state, because the Church of England dictated to the commoners how they were to live their lives. Christ never forced his doctrine on anyone, not even the prostitutes. He showed them mercy.

Peace,

David

 

[davidmlamb]

David,

Catholics can and must contribute to discussion in the public square!

In regards to trampling on liberties of others, I would say nothing is farther from the truth. SSM advocates claim it is a matter of equality and expanding the categories of people who may enter into marriage.

But that only is true if their revisionist definition of marriage rings true. So we need to ask the question of what marriage in fact is, before we can decide on the couples and types of relationships eligible to be deemed “marriage”. “Equality” is a bland and meaningless term in itself. Kids can’t marry parents, relatives can’t marry each other, and under the argument of marriage “equality”, those groups of people are being unjustly discriminated against. Some SSM advocates would claim that under their definition of marriage, these parties and type of union aren’t eligible for marriage for certain reasons. But their premises of marriage lack a crucial component and their definition therefore is fundamentally unsound, and they would rather steer clear from defining it.

Marriage is more than a consentual and emotional agreement between two adults, like companionship, it is a comprehensive union. A union which covers the many planes or levels of human nature and our complexity. A union which is both bodily through the participation of reproductive parts (incomplete in themselves) in an act to realize the biological reality of the reproductive process (the historically recognized “consumation of a marriage”, hence coitus is called the marital act), as well as a mental and emotional union, of commitment, mutual love, and selfless sacrifice.

There is no liberty for those who want to name homosexual unions as marriages, without radically changing the definition and meaning of marriage and reducing it to consentual and committed companionships which are meaningless to the state and which can be further revised, once the biological basis of the comprehensive union in marriage is removed as well as the purpose or fruit of the marital union in the offspring. Without openess to children and the biological nature of the unitive act, as some SSM marriage advocates, polygamists, swingers, etc. realize and press on in their efforts, such a distorted conception of marriage fails to support and thereby removes the reasons for commitment and exclusivity as well. Those aspects are secondary to the main aspect of marriage as a comprehensive (and therefore necessarily heterosexual) union

Heterosexual unions are the ONLY possible unions that meet all these aspects of a comprehensive union. Hence, marriage, by its very definition, is confined to heterosexual unions.

The definition of marriage is a religious belief that was adapted by the state as a common tradition and rite. Because marriage is rooted in religious belief’s the state does have the right to expand its definition based on the religious belief’s of others. We live in a society of freedom of religion. So if the Methodist for instance believes God blesses gay couples and accepts them as “married” The Catholics cannot infringe their belief’s on them, its clearly discriminatory. We do not live in a theocracy we live in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY which represents the needs of the homosexual community equally.

Peace,

David

 

[JontheMaronite]

The definition of marriage is a religious belief that was adapted by the state as a common tradition and rite. Because marriage is rooted in religious belief’s the state does have the right to expand its definition based on the religious belief’s of others. We live in a society of freedom of religion. So if the Methodist for instance believes God blesses gay couples and accepts them as “married” The Catholics cannot infringe their belief’s on them, its clearly discriminatory. We do not live in a theocracy we live in a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY which represents the needs of the homosexual community equally.

Peace,

David

No David, marriage has never been “a religious belief”. When we allow God to enter the institution of marriage and the covenant/union between husband and wife, it becomes a sacrament.
Please refer to your CCC on this one.

Why does EVERY state have this common tradition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman? Marriage is a natural institution, it is not particular to any particular religion or religious belief in general, it precedes the state, and it is based upon human nature. It does not discriminate, it recognizes the attributes and benefits of a particular type of union and human relationship.

Even cultures like Ancient Greece, which celebrated homoerotic expression, saw marriage to be the institution between husband and wife with the openess and the aim of raising children. Ask Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, as well as Xenophanes and Musonius Rufus. Read Plutarch’s Erotikos, and Life of Solon.

The most basic prinicples of marriage (heterosexual union, coitus, family) are the most widely held, while those derived from more basic principles would meet with patchier understanding and assent, since we reach them by applying other principles. With that in mind, the historical record on marriage is unsuprising: what it considers to be most basic to marriage - bodily union and connection to family life - are nearly universal in practice. What it treats as grounded in these basics - permanent, exclusive commitment - is less represented, hence the presence of polygomy, arrianged marriages, etc in history, contrasted with the nearly perfect human consensus on sexual complimentarity in marriage.

Now, government’s place and duty is to secure and protect its citizens’ rights, primarily the unalienable rights and also civil rights. Therefore, its interests and laws must necessarily legislate social and moral issues dealing with matters like the equality of human beings and the protection of human life and its goods, including the institution of marriage. Philosophical and moral arguments inform our approach to matters of ethics and matters in the public square, and are very relevant to public discourse and the rule of law. We will not be silenced by “political correctness” or the label of bigots, or the ridiculous accusation that we are radicals in favor of theocracy. The grounds on which we argue for the defense and preservation of the conjugal/traditional view of marriage are grounds that are available to all reasonable people, they are grounds based upon reason, philosophy and biology. It is the people advocating same-sex marriage and other progressive movements that would revise the definition and meaning and weaken the institution of marriage, who cause serious harm to our country and society.

 

[Slavonic]

To be consistent, then, let’s make theft, assault, rape and murder all legal because it is very easy for any random person to, for example, take a gun or knife and kill another. The fact that it is relatively easy to carry out an activity is one reason for the law to be involved in monitoring it, along with the fact that the lives of young citizens are currently at the whim of irresponsible engagers in the act. Of course, the state actively promotes that negligence by making abortion and contraception the right of the irresponsible.

I have no idea where you’re coming from on that first part. I was noting that the relationship, the mutual commitment, bonding, trust, etc is what is distinct about marriage, which only exists between the partners. Intercourse, however, can be performed by any pairing of male and female.

It all, apparently, comes down to the economics, then?

It comes down economics for those who refuse to recognize the dignity and value of LGBT unions.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I have no idea where you’re coming from on that first part. I was noting that the relationship, the mutual commitment, bonding, trust, etc is what is distinct about marriage, which only exists between the partners. Intercourse, however, can be performed by any pairing of male and female.

There can be relationship, mutual commitment, bonding and trust between lifelong friends, parents and their children, even between humans and their pets. It is simply untrue that these are what is essentially distinct about marriage. It is the combination of these with physical sexual union and a commitment to the progeny of this union that makes marriage distinct from all other relationships.

Your position simply ignores one necessary aspect by isolating it and trivializing it, forgetting that a new human being with infinite value comes about from “any pairing” of a male and female, as if that little aspect is an insignificant afterthought and not the critically important feature that, ultimately, is the purpose for the physical union.

 

[davidmlamb]

No David, marriage has never been “a religious belief”. When we allow God to enter the institution of marriage and the covenant/union between husband and wife, it becomes a sacrament.

Your argument here is an oxymoron. A sacrament is a religious belief, it is not a verifiable fact, it can only be seen and understood through the lens and the mind of faith. Most of the gay community does not have the same faith and therefore do not believe in sacraments, we have religious freedom and the state cannot show favor to any religious institution over another. It must respect the beliefs of all. If the gay community’s faith tells them gay marriage is good than that must be respected. The states are siding with me on this issue; gay marriage will eventually become the law in all 50 states. The only way to stop it is to change the constitution.
Be that as it may I believe the opponents of gay marriage strain out a gnat to swallow a camel. The institution of marriage has long ago been ship wrecked when we allowed no fault divorce and divorce so easily obtained. And then to add insult to injury we have no limit on the amount of times a person can be divorced and remarried. This is what destroys the family and not gay marriage.

Peace,
David

 

[fix]

Your argument here is an oxymoron. A sacrament is a religious belief, it is not a verifiable fact, it can only be seen and understood through the lens and the mind of faith. Most of the gay community does not have the same faith and therefore do not believe in sacraments, we have religious freedom and the state cannot show favor to any religious institution over another. It must respect the beliefs of all. If the gay community’s faith tells them gay marriage is good than that must be respected. The states are siding with me on this issue; gay marriage will eventually become the law in all 50 states. The only way to stop it is to change the constitution.
Be that as it may I believe the opponents of gay marriage strain out a gnat to swallow a camel. The institution of marriage has long ago been ship wrecked when we allowed no fault divorce and divorce so easily obtained. And then to add insult to injury we have no limit on the amount of times a person can be divorced and remarried. This is what destroys the family and not gay marriage.

Peace,
David

So marriage is in trouble from bad behavior therefore adding even more bad behavior is a good idea.

 

[Equites_Christi]

Your argument here is an oxymoron. A sacrament is a religious belief, it is not a verifiable fact, it can only be seen and understood through the lens and the mind of faith. Most of the gay community does not have the same faith and therefore do not believe in sacraments, we have religious freedom and the state cannot show favor to any religious institution over another. It must respect the beliefs of all. If the gay community’s faith tells them gay marriage is good than that must be respected. The states are siding with me on this issue; gay marriage will eventually become the law in all 50 states. The only way to stop it is to change the constitution.
Be that as it may I believe the opponents of gay marriage strain out a gnat to swallow a camel. The institution of marriage has long ago been ship wrecked when we allowed no fault divorce and divorce so easily obtained. And then to add insult to injury we have no limit on the amount of times a person can be divorced and remarried. This is what destroys the family and not gay marriage.

Peace,
David

Friend David,

But when the gay community’s faith says gay marriage should be allowed, and when others’ faith says gay marriage should not be allowed, how can the government respect both?

People have to realize an essential fact: to vote in a democracy is, essentially, to try to force your beliefs on other people. For example, many people last year believed that President Obama should be reelected, and they succeeding on imposing this belief on the entire nation, both those who agreed and those who disagreed. And this is the case for every election. This is ok. This is how democracy works. No issue will have a total consensus, and yet it will always be decided one way or the other.

So to say to pro-same sex marriage people, “It is alright to vote your opinion” and to say to anti-same sex marriage people “It is not alright to vote your opinion” flies in the face of democracy. To tell someone how they can and cannot vote is the opposite of a free country, and yet we see it everywhere, especially over this issue.

In short, EVERYONE votes based on their beliefs. Do people say, “I do not believe this man should be president, but I will vote for him anyways”? Of course not! They vote based on their belief of who should be president. To deny people the right to vote their beliefs, whatever they are, is the beginning of tyranny.

Do I think gays should be legally entitled to vote for their interests, even if I think their ideas are bad for society? Yes. And by the same token, I should be allowed to oppose them.

 

[davidmlamb]

So marriage is in trouble from bad behavior therefore adding even more bad behavior is a good idea.

It is not about good ideas or bad ideas, its about Constitutional Civil Rights. It’s about upholding the constitution for minority rights. This issue is no different than bi racial marriage. All the same arguments were made than as they are being made now. The state cannot favor one religion over another and must allow people to exercise their personal liberties without discrimination.

Peace,

David