Same-sex marriages: Let it be!

[SuperLuigi]

It is unfortunate that civil unions did not become a universal alternative.

This was never about equality to begin with. Because there is a such a nefarious, selfish agenda here, that’s never really been in the cards.

 

[theCardinalbird]

I wonder how Canada would deal with a case like this…

 

[Rau]

If the world wanted marriage to be a purely spiritual and moral institution, it should not have attached a barrage of civil legal and economic benefits to it including tax, pension, inheritance, the right to determine the partner’s health care, etc.

I don’t think the world wants that. “Benefits” are attached because they are by and large reasonable for persons choosing to live as husband and wife.

It is unfair to deny an entire class of reasonable people, … access to these benefits because they are gay.

This may well be a very reasonable position. And there may be other classes of people about whom we can make the identical statement.

It is likewise unfair and burdensome to a country’s civil and legal system, as well as to the people themselves, to make said country and legal system create an entire parallel body of “domestic partner” law just because a religion objects to the marriage.

This should be judged on the facts I think. In many countries, the “benefits” can accrue without any form of marriage at all. Mere “defacto” relationships are sufficient, and often same sex or opposite sex makes no difference. So I don’t think the “civil and legal system” is suffering a burden. The “burden” suffered by the people themselves is I think the emotional struggle that arises from a lack of acceptance of equivalence of their relationship to marriage. But what can be done about that? The difference is real.

By that reasoning, the state should have also created an entire new body of law for divorced people who remarry outside the Church because the Church does not see that as a valid marriage either.

The distinction with religious specifics of marriage (eg. questions of divorce) is not the point.

Now if the state were to come into the Church and compel it to marry gay people, divorced people, etc. in the Church, I would object as that would be an interference with religion and an overreaching. If the state tries to compel Christian bakers to make wedding cakes, etc. I would likewise object as that is an interference with the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom to contract, and there is no necessity involved here (plenty of other places will make that cake or host that wedding).

This is very fair-minded of you, but alas experience shows that the determination of those who insist that “all love” is the same and call for “marriage equality” is such that they will not accept any cracks in this ‘edifice’ of equivalence. Any form of “discrimination” opposes the notion of equivalence and will be resisted with no less fervour than that which has pursued “marriage equality”. This will apply in all spheres. In commerce; in sex education in the classroom (how can it be oriented purely to the “birds and the bees” when that does not encompass SS relationships?).

 

[anikins]

The anti same-sex marriage advocates have lost. Marriage equality is the new normal. Many governments including the USA allow for marriage for all and there are more on the way. This is not something that will be reversed. I am not sure why this is worth being debated, except to frustrate those against marriage for all.

 

[Rau]

I am not sure why this is worth being debated, except to frustrate those against marriage for all.

I believe it is being debated because opinions differ. The debate was not initiated by those who oppose SSM, but by those who proposed to introduce it.

 

[anikins]

I understand that the dialogue will enlighten both sides but the outcome of this debate is not going to change anything on the political stage, so personally, I feel it’s a little useless.

 

[JamalChristophr]

If same-sex couples believe that marriage will bring them happiness, let it be. I’m not going to fight it. I feel a deep love for gay people, just the same way I love straight people. Some worry that same-sex marriage may destroy the family, I doubt it. All we really need to do is preach the bible and those who light is ignited will turn from all evil.

Same-sex marriage is inherently contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ on a most profound and irrefutable level. For the Church to turn a blind eye to and adopt a permissive attitude towards such a grave offense against Life in Christ and the foundations of the Catholic Church would be for her to lose her moral credibility and show great disregard for the salvation of souls. The Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth (1 Tim 3: 15) and she can never stand idly by and “Let it be!” as you phrased it in your OP title. That would be a false charity indeed!

 

[BornInMarch]

The view I have is this: if you can’t find a non-religious argument against something, then you can’t make it illegal in a country with freedom of religion.

For example, I think abortion should be illegal in all circumstances because it destroys a human life. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In contrast, I can’t find any right or liberty that legalized gay marriage violates. The only reasons I’ve heard are “God disapproves” or “humans are breeding stock”, and neither seem justified in a democratic republic.

 

[Lara]

We can’t “Let it be” because our fundamental liberties are being taken away.

I believe either two things will happen. Either Islam will take over and make this discussion moot, or another illness similar to AIDS will strike homosexuals.

But the third option would be the best, if heterosexual people woke up and stopped being led by the alphabet crusaders. Since things change, they can change back too.

 

[Rau]

The view I have is this: if you can’t find a non-religious argument against something, then you can’t make it illegal in a country with freedom of religion.

I don’t want my children to be:

• taught that the sexual relationship of one man and another is natural;
• subjected to an expanded sex ed program that must necessarily extend way beyond “the birds and the bees” in the name of “inclusiveness”;

I also object to anti-discrimination laws being applied to forbid my free choice to decline to supply creative services to SSM events, which must surely follow when SSM and Marriage are deemed the same thing.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Catholics who believe that the government of the US should be beholden to a specific religious view when establishing its laws needs to re-learn what a “secular government” is.

I don’t object to SSM because of a religious view. I object to it because it contradicts human nature and contradicts reality. Human beings are either men or women. The two sexes are physically complementary, and thus capable of procreation. Those are facts of biology and anthropology and anatomy. Marriage is an institution has always been based on the possibility of procreation. Only a man and a woman can engage in the marital act. Same sex couples are incapable of being marital, incapable of being conjugal, incapable of life giving marital relations, incapable of marriage.

The law ought to recognize reality, not fantasy. A man is not a woman. A woman is not a man, nor can one sex be made into the other sex. Nor can a non-marital coupling be marriage.

But it seems that we live in an age when unreality rules. That is a recipe for disaster.

I think where you run afoul here is that most of the folks on the other side don’t identify marriage as a dominantly sexual institution. It’s more about love, rather than what organ corresponds to what orifice.

Moreover, they have no obligation to see it the way you do; the simultaneous glory and tragedy of democracy, I suppose.

 

[Vonsalza]

JimG:

I don’t object to SSM because of a religious view. I object to it because it contradicts human nature and contradicts reality.

Yes, which arises from our understanding of marriage as intrinsically “sexual”.

Certainly there are other legal difficulties that arise for persons wishing to be “united” before the law in the absence of marriage. Eg. End of life care etc. It is unfortunate that civil unions did not become a universal alternative.

Ah, you already beat me to it, then.

 

[pianistclare]

Well, you’ve really stepped in it now Robert.
Looks like 98% of posters vehemently disagree with you.
Could it be that your perception of God’s will for us is off a tad?

I would that some reading of the Church’s documents on sexuality may be in order. Read through that lens and get back with us.
Just a suggestion…

 

[Vonsalza]

Well, you’ve really stepped in it now Robert.
Looks like 98% of posters vehemently disagree with you.
Could it be that your perception of God’s will for us is off a tad?

I would that some reading of the Church’s documents on sexuality may be in order. Read through that lens and get back with us.
Just a suggestion…

I think what some are pointing out is that “marriage” as defined by a secular government for its own purposes cannot be beholden to a particular faith’s understanding of “marriage”.

What this means is that we can’t immediately assume that someone “married” per the state is also “married” per the Church. And given the existence of second and third (and so on…) marriages, we already don’t make that assumption.

 

[pianistclare]

I don’t think that’s what he’s saying at all.
I think he’s saying “whaddya gonna do? kids these days…ay yay yay.”

No Bueno. We still have to uphold Catholic teaching f we’re Catholic.

 

[Vonsalza]

I don’t think that’s what he’s saying at all.
I think he’s saying “whaddya gonna do? kids these days…ay yay yay.”

No Bueno. We still have to uphold Catholic teaching f we’re Catholic.

I agree.

Where we disagree is your implicit assumption that we must make the state define marriage in the same way the Church defines marriage.

As remarriage seems to be legal per the state, looks like we’ve failed there too.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Few on either side does their research.

On the no side, too many people still follow this ridiculous appeal to authority (don’t worry, the Catholic left does it all the time with climate change) of God/Bible/Vatican says so and that’s supposed to be that.

On the yes side, we are just supposed to automatically just give them whatever they want because they have “friends” who they think want this—and I do mean THEY THINK because it’s all part of this Western nonsense that some folks think they know what’s best for others and get to speak for them…because their “friends” or something.

The anti same-sex marriage advocates have lost. Marriage equality is the new normal. Many governments including the USA allow for marriage for all and there are more on the way. This is not something that will be reversed. I am not sure why this is worth being debated, except to frustrate those against marriage for all.

Just wait. The forces holding up so-called gay “marriage” are selfish, fragile and treacherous. The second it seizes being cool, a lot of people who currently support it will turn their backs on it----even to the point of making GLBT second-class citizens for REAL, not this fake “WAHHHH!!! conservatives hate gays” stupidity.

How many people do think are going to die at the hands of say radical Islam or sharia law activism in order to help their “friends”? I’d bet you real money that these people who say they are “friends” with all of these gay people have not ONCE asked them what they really want. They just ASSUME that based on this cultural Marxist notion of group identity. Of course, if you wander from the reservation even a bit like Dave Rubin or Milo Yiannapolus, you’re a white supremacist or something.

So-called gay “marriage” will not last. The assumptions you make, frankly, are based on the lies its supporters tell. But they are just that----lies on top of lies on top of lies.

Look at who is gaining power in the world. It’s mostly forces that will not tolerate so-called gay “marriage” and will use force to stop it, and they are making serious inroads into places where it is legal.

Do you really think that they are going to win a culture war against Russian Orthodoxy, sharia law or the Chinese propaganda machine?

A lot of these people marching in the streets are so far gone upstairs that they would JOIN them once the wind changes direction on this issue.

 

[pianistclare]

I don’t recall saying anything about making the state do anything.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

In addition to agreeing with Vonsalza above, I would add that this forum has self-selected such that the members who are very opposed to gay marriage tend to be the ones posting a lot in the threads about it. Of course 98 percent of posters here disagree with him. Those who might agree either left the forum or don’t bother to post about it here.

Showing any kind of support for gay anything in today’s Church takes courage. The people who disagree will shout very loud.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Showing any kind of support for gay anything in today’s Church takes courage.

No it doesn’t. Being pro gay “marriage” if that’s what you mean (which actually isn’t pro-gay because it sells GLBT folks on a bunch of lies and false expectations) is one of the easiest, risk-free positions anyone can take.

It is easy, fun and cool----and that’s why you have to try so hard to make it sound like it’s hard and a struggle.

I would add that this forum has self-selected such that the members who are very opposed to gay marriage tend to be the ones posting a lot in the threads about it.

Oh my goodness…defending marriage on a Catholic Forum?? Say it ain’t so!