Same-Sex Marriage

[Consecrated]

BillP:

I reject your charge of Cultural Relativism. I believe this is the crux of our disagreement…

Please forgive me for seeming to judge you. I leave that to God. But I don’t understand what you mean when you then say “this is the crux of our disagreement.” I guess I just don’t know what to think when on the one hand you say you believe in absolute moral law (as a good Catholic should ), but then on the other, seem to say that it is alright for the current concensus (your word, right?), to make a law that is contrary to Truth. Am I misunderstanding or misreading your words?

Absolutely we have a right to sin. God gives each of us free will and that free will means NOTHING if it doesn’t mean we have the right to difinitively reject God if we so choose. And definitively rejecting God is pretty much the definition of sin isn’t it?

The CCC says:

My emphasis

If God has chosen to give man to ability to reject him, who are we to try to remove that ability? Note, I didn’t say we shouldn’t try to convince our brothers and sisters not to reject God.

I am differentiating between a “right” (God -given endowment), and ability. A right is a good thing. Free-will is a good thing. Using our free will to choose sin is not, and it is not our “right”. In fact, it would be a good thing if our society were more intent on limiting our opportunities to sin, by surrounding us with things that are “good, pleasing, and perfect”. As humans, it’s easy to sin. (Eve sinned in the Garden surrounded by a perfectly harmonious creation) Why make it easier and even more alluring by making it economically rewarding (as proponants of SSM claim to do for the act of homosexuality)?

Although society cannot force someone to profess any sort of creed, it also cannot, in the name of “protection of rights”, encourage immorality/sin. Though we are completely free to be immoral, there is no such thing as the right to immorality. Legalizing SSM would be encouraging the act of homosexuality, which is immoral and an affront to both Natural and Supernatural Law.

BillP:

I said we have to respect their decision (as God does) if they choose to do so.

I don’t know if “respect their decision” is the right terminology. I think “allow them to make said decision” is more accurate, and more like the language of the CCC paragraph you quoted.

 

[BillP]

felra:

Now your are asking the bigger questions that should confront every Catholic believer worth their sand. It starts with personal conversion and growing in holiness. Then from there you take up the battle in the shere of influence that you have direct contact with and those other areas that you feel, discern God is calling you to take up arms against. The Church is a Body of believers, each with their specific function and purpose.

See post# 209.

Ah! I found them!

Yes, I do remember reading them. Yes I do take them seriously. But apparantly don’t see my obligations in the same way that you see yours (and I suppose mine).

"It is a part of the Church’s mission “to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances.” (2246

CCC)

Quote:
 	 		 			 				"When the work which the Father gave the Son to do on earth was accomplished, the Holy Spirit was sent on the day of Pentecost in order that he might continually sanctify the Church." Then "the Church was openly displayed to the crowds and the spread of the Gospel among the nations, through preaching, was begun." As the "convocation" of all men for salvation, the Church in her very nature is missionary, sent by Christ to all the nations to make disciples of them." (**767 **CCC) 			 		 	 	 

Quote:

God “desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth”: that is, of Christ Jesus. Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:

God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations (**74 **CCC)

I see nothing in any of these about coercion or compelling people by force and violence (which in the final analysis is what the force of law is). To accept those moral judgements.

Again I ask. In your opinion, what is the proper limit of religious compulsion in our society?

 

[felra]

BillP:

If canon law isn’t bind on those who don’t profess Catholicism then why does a divorced Protestant wishing to marry a Catholic have to obtain an aunnullment then? Ins’t the Catholic Church’s position that if they married without an annullment they would be comitting adultery?

So adultery is okay for non-Catholics?

Here is an answer from the CA AAA forum that answers your seeming contraction:

Question

: If a Luthern is joined in marrige to another Luthern and they get a divorce in a civil court, can either remarry in the Catholic Church should they meet a Catholic and decide to get married in the Catholic church?

Answer: If the prior marriage was a valid, sacramental marriage then only death of one of the spouses frees the other to marry again. The Catholic Church is consistent with Jesus’ teaching on this (ie. Mark 10:9).

Therefore, if one of the spouses wishes to remarry in the Catholic Church while the other spouse is still living, the prior marriage must first be investigated to determine whether or not it was a valid, sacramental marriage. If it was, a new marriage cannot take place. If it was not, the Church will declare this officially with a declaration of nullity – an annulment – and the party will be free to marry a Catholic.

(Note: A Catholic must get permission from the Church to marry a non-Catholic Christian – see Mixed Marriages.)

---

Jim Blackburn
Catholic Answers Apologist

Can a divorced Protestant marry a Catholic?

 

[Ortho]

kaymart:

Who cares what the Catholic Church thinks? I DO!!!, as many posters here do too. :banghead: If you don’t care then leave thank you. Most Catholics I know are open to life, maybe its the people you know that are not. If a man and a woman of 70 years of age and are free to marry in the Catholic Church they are permitted to do so, who the heck are you to rewrite Church Doctrine??? As I stated before it also goes for infertile couples, they can be Married. SSM’s break down the morals of Society, it doesn’t matter if you are Catholic, Jewish, Lutheran, Muslim or whatever. It is not as God intended. As the old saying goes God created Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve. (or Annie and Eve)

The Church is free to make any rules it wants for its members. Whatever rules it makes for marriage are fine with me. But civil marriage is not under the Church’s rule making authority. And it is a bit strange for the Vatican to insist that civil marriage be open to life when most Catholics have rejected that teaching.

Will SSM break down your morals? Who here thinks their morals will breakdown if SSM is legal? Anyone from Massachusetts? Have your morals broken down?

 

[Ortho]

kaymart:

People who have children are. By your profile you are only 21 the same age as my middle child. Talk to us after you have a few children and sit with a curious 5 year old who asks one question after another and you have to explain why Jimmy has 2 mommies? Where is Suzy’s Daddy? or Why those two men are kissing? Or try Telling your teen daughter to keep herself for marriage, while the media and people living around her are living immorallly. At the same time with all this going on you try as you might, to instill the values you want you child to have. Parenting is a hard job. Trust me I been doing it for 28 years. Again how do you know the seventy year old couple is sexually active or not? They are permitted to marry even if she is past menopause. I did not know YOU decided there is an age limit for sex. I better warn my husband, he only has 9 years and 7 months to go.

I’d suggest people who can’t answer their kids questions find someone who can - for the sake of the kid.

I didn’t know there was an age limit for sex either. Odd concept…But you brought it up.

Is it OK for the two 70-year-olds with no other family to marry and hit the sack? It sure isn’t reproductive.

 

[Ortho]

kaymart:

Ok, Let’s put all the moral stuff behind, pretend we live in a totally Godless world. The same sex couple if they have joint property or if a Lesbian has a child the natural way (with a man)—then go to a lawyer, draw up a partnership to protect the surving person. If you want custody to go to the partner, that’s fine, a mother must make sure for her child’s future if she dies. Joint property will be given to the person named in the will. The need for Mariage is not there. About Health Insurance, that’s too bad, but heterosexual couples can not put their aging parents on a policy, You can’t cover young adult children or grandchildren that You don’t have custody of. The line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise abuses of the system will be more out of control then it is already.

Perhaps we could eliminate the whole problem if we just dropped marriage and had everyone go to a lawyer?

 

[Ortho]

kaymart:

OK I got it, Read my lastest post #150 I state only secular reasons and offer an alternative. The breakdown of the nuclear family is the cause of many problems today, whether it be Homosexual couples, divorce, out of wedlock children and so forth. This has nothing to do with Religion, it has to do with the way people are living today. I know there has been homosexuals since the beginning of time, but Tell me why do 2 persons of the same sex DESERVE the same rights as a married man and woman, when marriage, be it a Civil or not is only intended for a man and a woman? Can you give us a valid reason why? Can you tell me why a legal paper drawn up by a lawyer would not protect the “couple” in case of death of one of the parnters as stated in post #150?

The intention has changed. Now we see various polities that intend SSM.

 

[felra]

BillP:

felra:

Ah! I found them!

Yes, I do remember reading them. Yes I do take them seriously. But apparantly don’t see my obligations in the same way that you see yours (and I suppose mine).

I see nothing in any of these about coercion or compelling people by force and violence (which in the final analysis is what the force of law is). To accept those moral judgements.

Again I ask. In your opinion, what is the proper limit of religious compulsion in our society?

I see my obligations as put forth by the Magisterium teaching and examples of committed Catholics.

78.

The Church has received the Gospel as a proclamation and a source of joy and salvation. She has received it as a gift from Jesus, sent by the Father “to preach good news to the poor” (Lk 4:18). She has received it through the Apostles, sent by Christ to the whole world (cf. Mk 16:15; Mt 28:19-20). Born from this evangelizing activity, the Church hears every day the echo of Saint Paul’s words of warning: “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!” (1 Cor 9:16). As Paul VI wrote, “evangelization is the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity. She exists in order to evangelize”.[101]

80. We need to bring the Gospel of life to the heart of every man and woman and to make it penetrate every part of society.

82. In the proclamation of this Gospel, we must not fear hostility or unpopularity, and we must refuse any compromise or ambiguity which might conform us to the world’s way of thinking (cf. Rom 12:2). We must be in the world but not of the world (cf. Jn 15:19; 17:16), drawing our strength from Christ, who by his Death and Resurrection has overcome the world (cf. Jn 16:33).
dads.org/evangvit.asp

 

[BillP]

Consecrated:

Please forgive me for seeming to judge you. I leave that to God. But I don’t understand what you mean when you then say “this is the crux of our disagreement.” I guess I just don’t know what to think when on the one hand you say you believe in absolute moral law (as a good Catholic should ), but then on the other, seem to say that it is alright for the current concensus (your word, right?), to make a law that is contrary to Truth. Am I misunderstanding or misreading your words?

Let me see if I can clarify it for you. I am Catholic. I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church. I belive the Catholic Church encompasses the truth about morality and the path to salvation.

However, I am also mindful that throughout history many people who professed and practiced certain religions have from time to time been denied the right to practice their religion or forced to practice (at least outwardly) some other religion.

I rejoice that I live in a society governed by a Constitution that explicitly prevents such cocercion and guarantees me the ability to freely practice Catholicism. Part and parcel of that is realizing and accepting that I live in a society where the majority of people do not share my beliefs, and that I have no right to force my beliefs on them.

So yes I believe it is “okay” for the current consensus to make a law that doesn’t accept Catholic morality.

Consecrated:

I am differentiating between a “right” (God -given endowment), and ability… Using our free will to choose sin is not, and it is not our “right”.

I do not differentiate between “right” and “ability” in the sense that you do. According to the CCC it is in fact our choice to accept or reject God. We hold possession of our soul or our “eternal fortunes” for lack of a better term. We can choose to accept or reject God. That is our right (or our ability or entitlement if you prefer). As for God given endowment, if God did not give us the ability to reject him then who did?

Consecrated:

In fact, it would be a good thing if our society were more intent on limiting our opportunities to sin, by surrounding us with things that are “good, pleasing, and perfect”.

I could not possibly disagree more. Especially because we Catholics wouldn’t be the ones choosing which sins to which society’s access should be limited.

Consecrated:

Although society cannot force someone to profess any sort of creed, it also cannot, in the name of “protection of rights”, encourage immorality/sin.

First do not confuse tolerance of person choice with encouragement. Every time I walk by a Protestant eating a Big Mac on a Lentan Friday without slapping it out of his hand I’m exercising tolerance, but not encouragement. Everytime I walk through the aisles of my local Kroger without secretly perforating the boxes of condoms I exercising tolerance but not encoouraging people to use them. Everytime my baptist co-worker walks through the aisle of Publix without “accidentally” knocking a few bottles of wine crashing on the floor she’s exercisng tolerance not encouraging drunkeness.

Consecrated:

SSM would be encouraging the act of homosexuality, which is immoral and an affront to both Natural and Supernatural Law.

I reject this asssertion as well. Do you know anyone who syas to himself “If only I could be in a SSM I’d become a homosexual”? Of course not. Do you think SSM would create “new” homosexuals out of people who are now heterosexual? of course not.

Consecrated:

I don’t know if “respect their decision” is the right terminology. I think “allow them to make said decision” is more accurate, and more like the language of the CCC paragraph you quoted.

I can live with your terminology. In the final analysis it is their choice.

 

[BillP]

78. The Church has received the Gospel as a proclamation and a source of joy and salvation. She has received it as a gift from Jesus, sent by the Father “to preach good news to the poor” (Lk 4:18). She has received it through the Apostles, sent by Christ to the whole world (cf. Mk 16:15; Mt 28:19-20). Born from this evangelizing activity, the Church hears every day the echo of Saint Paul’s words of warning: “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!” (1 Cor 9:16). As Paul VI wrote, “evangelization is the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity. She exists in order to evangelize”.[101]

80. We need to bring the Gospel of life to the heart of every man and woman and to make it penetrate every part of society.

82. In the proclamation of this Gospel, we must not fear hostility or unpopularity, and we must refuse any compromise or ambiguity which might conform us to the world’s way of thinking (cf. Rom 12:2). We must be in the world but not of the world (cf. Jn 15:19; 17:16), drawing our strength from Christ, who by his Death and Resurrection has overcome the world (cf. Jn 16:33).

Again I see nothing about compelling or coercing peoples behavior.

And I don’t believe you’ve answered my question:

Again I ask. In your opinion, what is the proper limit of religious compulsion in our society?

 

[BillP]

felra:

Here is an answer from the CA AAA forum that answers your seeming contraction:

Can a divorced Protestant marry a Catholic?

Well so much for:

felra:

Your point? Canon law is binding only to those who profess the Catholic faith …sexual lifestyle is erroneous.

So when does your crusade end Civil Divorce and thereby prevent all those divorced people comitting adultery start?

 

[felra]

BillP:

Again I see nothing about compelling or coercing peoples behavior.

And I don’t believe you’ve answered my question:

I do not agree or subscribe to the inherent bias of your question. I have already attempted to honestly and sincerely answer your question.

 

[BillP]

felra:

I do not agree or subscribe to the inherent bias of your question.

I’m sorry. I didn’t intend for my question to be biased. Feel free to rephrase it as you wish.

felra:

I have already attempted to honestly and sincerely answer your question.

I don’t doubt your honesty nor your sincerity. I just don’t understand your answer. I’ve told you how I reconcile being Catholic and being American. I was asking how you reconcile those two responsibilities.

 

[Libero]

Will SSM break down your morals? Who here thinks their morals will breakdown if SSM is legal? Anyone from Massachusetts? Have your morals broken down?

I think that such questions are probably only to get a real answer to the question “do civil unions harm society?” How can we start discussing all of the negative effects, of something that is unprecedented? Looking at the current social status in countries/ states that have allowed civil unions is the only real way to try and condemn them - other wise such talk is just a load of presumptious babble.

 

[the-3rd-parent]

Ortho:

Will SSM break down your morals? Who here thinks their morals will breakdown if SSM is legal? Anyone from Massachusetts? Have your morals broken down?

I think you’re question looks too much to the immediate and not enough to the future. It is not a matter of breaking down my morals, but rather the impact it has on society’s understanding of what marriage is and thus the breaking down of our children’s morals.

SSM would not be an issue of our society had not already schewed and blurred the perception of just what marriage is. Strictly speaking, marriage is a religious institution recognized as valuable to the betterment of society by the state. Thus the state encourages marriages by giving those who marry state benefits. The primary benefit is that married people have children through their sexual relations and the state was to encourage married couples to stay together so that their offspring would not become wards of the state. Moreover the state also takes measures to encourage the unwed to marry as if they have sex they may have children.

For seemingly justifiable reasons the states in the United States have continued to put legislature down to encourage marriage, but while also putting down legislature that helps the married to seperate on lose grounds making it an issue of the state as to decide who gets custody of the children. The children then become a burden of the state and of their parents. While there are areas of serious abuse which can justify the seperation, it should only justify it when greater good comes out of that seperation to all the parties involved including the children.

But more and more marriage has become more of a tradition and people have had to deal with the fact that being married doesn’t necessarly mean you’re going to be in love forever. The institution of marriage is a commitment to choice to love each other till death do you part and you are bound by the God of whom you married under and are supposed to be bound by the state as well.

But our values over marriage has not been to value it at all, but merely to value the wedding and the state benefits which include restrictions on the unmarried.

The problem is that with the direction the laws this country has regarding marriage, the government’s involvement in such commitments becomes pointless. Its as if they can’t make up their mind whether they think its good for the state or not so instead allow for the state to get involved in affairs which have little to no means of being of beneficial to the state. And many in this country now do see marriage as nothing but a mere peice of paper as that is all it is today in regards to state procedures. Without religion, it is nothing anymore. Hense we have an increase in cohabitation. This effects even the religious who have had poor Catechesis and merely read what the society says about marriage. While they still love the wedding and most couples are merely vowing to the belief that they will stay infatuated with each other forever. They worship the Greek concept of eros but do not understand how cohabitation, premarital sex, the use of contraceptives, etc restricts their hearts’ capacity to move on to the Greek concept of Agape, which I just found out from reading our Pope’s encyclical on love is a word that is used frequently in the bible but was not a common word in the Greek language.

The “marriage” between people of the same sex serves no religious purpose nor does it benefit the state in anyway. Rather we are told to focus on the injustice and inconvinence same sex couples who experience eros with each other because they are not given state benefits that were there in the first place to encourage opposite sex individuals to marry. Beyond that, its a mere complaint about hospital and insurence policies.

Going even further, you will find that the goal of some organizations on the extreeme left is to encourage SSM for the sake of trashing marriage. The overall goal in mind is to rid the country of civil marriage altogether, to create a society where those who are religiously married and those who are cohabbitating are considered one in the same, as marriage is still considered by some feminists still believe that marriage is more of a slavery that traps partners who do not want to be together to remain together. If you don’t believe me, let me know and I’ll go look up those feminist websites I found 3 years ago that stated just that.

 

[Ortho]

kaymart:

The only reason I started with the Religious tone was because as a Catholic I was responding to a person who attacked my Faith by saying “Who cares what the Catholic Church thinks?” I am not ignorant and understood the question. What it seems to be the problem here is people are trying to rewrite nature. If you belief is their is no God, Allah, or whatever and we came from Apes or whatever, nature somehow created Male and Female in the world to reproduce. Somebody somewhere created it that the bodies “fit” together and are “NORMALLY” drawn to the opposite sex, to create new life, now the arguement of old people or infertile couples that can not reproduce so should not marry, holds no merit because no matter what they are a man and a woman. Now you might say Homosexuals are drawn to each other so they should marry, well that arguement is just as silly as I am drawn to my dog, so why not marry. Or I feel like living in the nicer home next door instead of my old home, maybe I’ll have laws drawn up so I can have what they have. It goes against common sense. Period!!!(yes, I get a discount for exclaimation points!!!)

I would actually encourage Catholics to attack SSM from a religious perspective. That will only help the SSM cause since most people reject the Catholic teachings on marrriage, including most Catholics…

 

[Ortho]

felra:

Yours is a scarry proposition that left to its logical conclusion is a recipe for chaos. Persons seeking a lifestyle based solely on sexual preference and lacking in procreative capacity in and of itself, are no more deserving of “civil rights” than “anyone or everyone who feels that they have a basis for civil rights”. Your argument is lacking a coherent whole/foundation of values and beliefs (unless of course, your belief system is relativism) from which to assess and make value judgments of which claims/pleas are in need/deserving of “civil rights” protection. I would think that with all the emotional and health risks associated with SSA liasons, these individual folks are more in need of a protection from their own sexual lifestyles thasn condining them.

"Persons seeking a lifestyle based solely on sexual preference and lacking in procreative capacity in and of itself, are no more deserving of “civil rights” than “anyone or everyone who feels that they have a basis for civil rights”

Does this include those two 70-year-olds with out families who marry?

 

[Ortho]

luvmykids:

Why is it so difficult for some to understand that marriage has a religious foundation, no matter what anyone believes. It is not something that everyone as a human being has a right to, because by definition marriage is the unity of a man and a woman. That is it’s definition. Minors can’t get married, because they can’t give consent and homosexuals can’t get married because they are of the same sex. They don’t have a right to something that by definition, they are unable to do. Sorry if it’s so hard to understand. They were not made to sexually be together, whether you believe it to be God who made them or they were just made. If they want to be able to draw up some legal papers between themselves that if one of them dies the other is left with it all, or consent for medical information, or whatever it be, then so be it.

Society itself is what began to take religion out of marriage and that’s when it all started to come crashing down, and now our divorce rate is so high. The fact is that no legality is going to promote them to be committed to one another, that is not what keeps people together…isn’t that obvious? It is the very thing that marriage was founded on, the religous, spiritual part of it that keeps couples together, not the whatever makes me feel good, self serving, whatever turns me on, companionship part of it. ANYONE can be a companion to one another. ANYONE can genitally stimulate another. I can promise you that SSM is not going to correct the problems they are having with promiscuity, and risky behaviors. Homosexuality in itself is a risky behavior. This is a problem, because it is disordered. It is not something normal…if you believe it to be so, explain why only 2% of the population has this problem?

Civil marriage is defined by the state legislature, not religion.

What percent of the population has red hair?

 

[Ortho]

kaymart:

Now that wording, a “Civil Partnership” not the word “Marriage” I could live with. I believe that any joint properties own by any two individuals should be protected, in case of death of the other. Also the custody of a child who was born to a lesbian, should not be uprooted from their home in the case of death of natural mother. But I can not go along with the Health Insurance part because there are siblings who live together, strait roomates, aging parents who live with grown children, adult children still living at home, men and women who simply live together, it would get ridiculous. They have to draw the line some where. I agree with leaving it as is. Husband, wife, Children (natural or adopted)-(that would cover child of lesbian who dies, her partner would in fact become the child’s legal guardian and under that they can get insurance for the child.) Again I think it’s the word “Marriage” or “Civil Union” that rubs people the wrong way, but a “civil partnership” (this could even be two strait people) could work if it main objective is to protect a persons property and guardianship provided for the child(ren)

OK. “Civil partnership” is just fine. I don’t care what it’s called.

Health insurance is the business of the insurance company. They can offer whatever they want. Any insurance company is free to offer coverage to whomever they choose.

 

[Ortho]

Consecrated:

Please define your perception of “basic human right”. The founding fathers viewed basic human rights as those things that are gifts from God, and therefore NOT created by the state. (Ex: the right to life, the right to provide for self and family, the right to freely worship God…) Rather, they intended that the State should exist with the purpose of (justly) defending those rights. Now, if you would agree with this, we must ask, “Who gives two men/women the ‘right’ to a civil union? God? Or, if you don’t believe in a god/creator, the State?”

Please try to understand. It is not just the possible children of SSM that we are concerned with here. It is OUR children as well, who LIVE and are being formed in a society that sees same-sex union as NORMAL, when it is NOT. Now, in order to come to the understanding that it is not normal, one must first agree to hold to some sort of objective moral standard, and then agree that Natural Law is in fact THE moral standard. Now, if you believe that the Natural Law arguement against homosexuality is a “religous” one because it is based on the idea that there is a First Mover Who is infinite, then I’m out of ideas.

Note the US constitution does not say basic human rights come from God. Perhaps they believed it, but, given a choice, they didn’t put in the constitution.

Society has no obligation to order itself according to your views on natural law. Natural law arguments rely on who defines what is natural.