Same-sex marriages: Let it be!

[AdjutorSwim]

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.

I agree with your sentiment. The fight is lost, and the Catholic Church has lost once again.

The best Catholics can hope for in today’s fallen world is to carry on and preach their message through other means–practicing their faith, evangelizing, and demonstrating love and compassion to others.

I agree with your bolded statement. Evangelizing and preaching are much more effective at changing human lives and behavior, not coercing people through law. We can’t legislate morality.

You’re right, the fact that someone is gay does not, and will not affect anyone else directly. That is why society has decided that religious freedom does not trump individual freedom. And that is why Catholics have lost this political battle.

The only thing we can hope for is that priests are not required to marry gays in their parishes. Maybe movements to get the government out of marriage. But I doubt those will win either because they make government look uncaring, and society expects the government to lend a helping hand to it.

 

[Rau]

I agree with your sentiment. The fight is lost, and the Catholic Church has lost once again.

The best Catholics can hope for in today’s fallen world is to carry on and preach their message through other means–practicing their faith, evangelizing, and demonstrating love and compassion to others…

So, when battles appear lost, your strategy is to cease to express a contrary message, perhaps even to assent to what the majority wants. How then does the Church support the specific truth in question, and the eventual turning of the tide?

Evangelizing and preaching are much more effective at changing human lives and behavior, not **coercing **people through law. We can’t legislate morality.

It is not an either or question though, is it.

And to what coercion do you refer? Deeming 2 men eligible for marriage requires everyone in society to view 2 men (or 2 women) entering into a sexual relationship as a natural societal unit. And calling it marriage is to require us to view it as a normal means of family formation, identical to the man+woman union intrinsic to our nature. It requires us to acknowledge it to be just the same as man+woman, and failure to acknowledge it as such may be grounds to be prosecuted! Please consider exactly who is being coerced!

 

[on_the_hill]

Forcing people to do “good” is always a mistake. Issues like this needs to come from the heart. Love and peace must be nurtured; force is bad.

I agree with you.
Fear of punishment is a lousy motivator.
Because when you coerce morality you get people who are good only out of fear of punishment. Do you go to Church on Sunday because you want to, or because you’re afraid of the consequences if you don’t? I go because I want to, personally. Fear of God isn’t what is putting me in the pew.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I agree with you.
Fear of punishment is a lousy motivator.
Because when you coerce morality you get people who are good only out of fear of punishment. Do you go to Church on Sunday because you want to, or because you’re afraid of the consequences if you don’t? I go because I want to, personally. Fear of God isn’t what is putting me in the pew.

While filial fear is the aversion to sin out of love for God, not wanting to hurt Him,which should be our goal,avoiding sin out of fear of punishment is usually the starting point for most people.

 

[on_the_hill]

While filial fear is the aversion to sin out of love for God, not wanting to hurt Him,which should be our goal,avoiding sin out of fear of punishment is usually the starting point for most people.

i dont recall it being an issue with me. I’ve never been afraid of God.

 

[Rohzek]

While filial fear is the aversion to sin out of love for God, not wanting to hurt Him,which should be our goal,avoiding sin out of fear of punishment is usually the starting point for most people.

How utterly paternalistic. It is this kind of paternalistic mentality on the part of governments that leads to dictatorships and the disenfranchisement of the masses. We aren’t talking about children here. We are talking about grown adults. In this country, religion is separated from the state. Therefore, same-sex marriage should legally be allowed under secular law.

If most Christians tend to follow that “fear of punishment” mentality, then they should save themselves some time and give up on life. Either that, or grow up. Christ went to the cross not by force or out of fear, but rather by his own volition. His example is the one to follow and no other.

 

[Rau]

In this country, religion is separated from the state. Therefore, same-sex marriage should legally be allowed under secular law.

Depends what folks understand marriage to be.

 

[simpleas]

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.

 

[Pulvis]

How utterly paternalistic. It is this kind of paternalistic mentality on the part of governments that leads to dictatorships and the disenfranchisement of the masses. We aren’t talking about children here. We are talking about grown adults. In this country, religion is separated from the state. Therefore, same-sex marriage should legally be allowed under secular law.

If most Christians tend to follow that “fear of punishment” mentality, then they should save themselves some time and give up on life. Either that, or grow up. Christ went to the cross not by force or out of fear, but rather by his own volition. His example is the one to follow and no other.

You have, in two paragraphs, discredited most of the old testament and part of the epistles. You misunderstand filial fear, and have no real concept of scripture. You also use your lack of understanding to validate your own opinion. Charitably I would urge you to do more study in the right relationship we are to cultivate with God and our Lord.

 

[Rohzek]

You have, in two paragraphs, discredited most of the old testament and part of the epistles. You misunderstand filial fear, and have no real concept of scripture. You also use your lack of understanding to validate your own opinion. Charitably I would urge you to do more study in the right relationship we are to cultivate with God and our Lord.

That is a lot to assert, but it contains no argument whatsoever. Notice how you just casually neglected to make any detailed argument whatsoever, but rather said “oh you just don’t understand.” I actually probably read and know the Bible much better than you do. Not only that, but I also have likely read the Church Fathers more than you as well. Come back to me when you decide to make an argument.

I would like to take this time to urge you to follow Christ’s example.

 

[Jeanne_S]

How utterly paternalistic. It is this kind of paternalistic mentality on the part of governments that leads to dictatorships and the disenfranchisement of the masses. We aren’t talking about children here. We are talking about grown adults. In this country, religion is separated from the state. Therefore, same-sex marriage should legally be allowed under secular law.

If most Christians tend to follow that “fear of punishment” mentality, then they should save themselves some time and give up on life. Either that, or grow up. Christ went to the cross not by force or out of fear, but rather by his own volition. His example is the one to follow and no other.

Let me articulate my response in another way.Contrition for our sins,at least speaking from my own experience tend to come initially out of fear of God’s punishment,ie Hell.That will eventually lead to filial fear, which is a healthy fear, because one so loves God,it pains them to be separated from Him through sin and because of that deep love for God we in turn do not want to offend our hurt Him with our sins.On a final note aren’t we called to have the faith of little children.Humility before Our Lord.

 

[Rohzek]

Let me articulate my response in another way.Contrition for our sins,at least speaking from my own experience tend to come initially out of fear of God’s punishment,ie Hell.That will eventually lead to filial fear, which is a healthy fear, because one so loves God,it pains them to be separated from Him through sin and because of that deep love for God we in turn do not want to offend our hurt Him with our sins.On a final note aren’t we called to have the faith of little children.Humility before Our Lord.

I do not deny that for many there may initially be a motivation out of fear. However, eventually people have to grow out of that. So I agree with what you are saying thus far. But I would hardly ever vest the state with the power to use fear to compel people towards a moral cause. It is at that point that we are no longer speaking of fearing a god, but rather a human or group of humans. It seems to me, that if such is the case, then the relationship with God has been complicated if not completely obstructed.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

We aren’t talking about children here. We are talking about grown adults. In this country, religion is separated from the state. Therefore, same-sex marriage should legally be allowed under secular law.

Hello Rohzek:

You do not have to be a Catholic, or even a christian, to raise an argument against the redefinition of marriage. Rather, Catholic teaching on marriage is consistent with the history of marriage as existing exclusively between a man and a woman. If I believe that it is poor social policy to redefine marriage so that it is completely separate from the good of uniting children to their natural parents, I am not somehow disqualified from the public debate because of my religious beliefs. Nor should I be labelled a “bigot” or a “homophobe” simply because I believe marriage by its nature does not apply to even a loving and committed same-sex relationship.

The political discussion should focus on answering the question: “What is a marriage?”

Peace,
Robert in SD

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Forcing people to do “good” is always a mistake. Issues like this needs to come from the heart. Love and peace must be nurtured; force is bad.

Hello Robert:
I think a distinction needs to be drawn between “forcing people to do good” and sanctioning what someone knows is wrong. Nobody will be ‘forced to do good’ if the definition of marriage remains as it has always been, i.e. a recognized and exclusive union between man and woman for the purpose of uniting children to their natural parents. Keeping the definition as it has been understood throughout history is not forcing anything on anyone. To the contrary the argument can be made that changing the definition of marriage so that it abandons the link between child and natural parents for the purpose of furthering the gay-rights agenda is forcing a “good” on society that the majority does not want to accept.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Jeanne_S]

Hello Rohzek:

You do not have to be a Catholic, or even a christian, to raise an argument against the redefinition of marriage. Rather, Catholic teaching on marriage is consistent with the history of marriage as existing exclusively between a man and a woman. If I believe that it is poor social policy to redefine marriage so that it is completely separate from the good of uniting children to their natural parents, I am not somehow disqualified from the public debate because of my religious beliefs. Nor should I be labelled a “bigot” or a “homophobe” simply because I believe marriage by its nature does not apply to even a loving and committed same-sex relationship.

The political discussion should focus on answering the question: “What is a marriage?”

Peace,
Robert in SD

Well said!

 

[Bradski]

To the contrary the argument can be made that changing the definition of marriage so that it abandons the link between child and natural parents for the purpose of furthering the gay-rights agenda is forcing a “good” on society that the majority does not want to accept.

I believe that should be ‘minority’. And those who specifically express an opinion against it is just 40%. Far from a majority I’d say.

Today, a majority of Americans (52%) support same-sex marriage, compared with 40% who oppose it. http://www.pewforum.org/2014/09/24/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

The future is in the hands of the coming generations. And I think we can all see which direction the graph on that link is heading.

 

[Rohzek]

Hello Rohzek:

You do not have to be a Catholic, or even a christian, to raise an argument against the redefinition of marriage. Rather, Catholic teaching on marriage is consistent with the history of marriage as existing exclusively between a man and a woman. If I believe that it is poor social policy to redefine marriage so that it is completely separate from the good of uniting children to their natural parents, I am not somehow disqualified from the public debate because of my religious beliefs. Nor should I be labelled a “bigot” or a “homophobe” simply because I believe marriage by its nature does not apply to even a loving and committed same-sex relationship.

The political discussion should focus on answering the question: “What is a marriage?”

Peace,
Robert in SD

And history will show you also that marriage has been redefined multiple times across the centuries. It was not even considered a sacrament until the 12th century in the Latin West. For the most part it was considered a simple contract. While many began to seek the blessing of their local priest, clerical involvement was never necessary to validate a marriage. It was merely validated by the couple’s vows, and nothing more.

In light of this evidence, you would be hard pressed to tell anyone that they should not redefine marriage to suit their own needs. It would be akin to telling women a century ago, “Hey, never in human history have women voted before. Therefore, you should not push to have the right to vote.” It is a ridiculous form of logic to propose.

 

[Rau]

And history will show you also that marriage has been redefined multiple times across the centuries. It was not even considered a sacrament until the 12th century in the Latin West. For the most part it was considered a simple contract. While many began to seek the blessing of their local priest, clerical involvement was never necessary to validate a marriage. It was merely validated by the couple’s vows, and nothing more.

In light of this evidence, you would be hard pressed to tell anyone that they should not redefine marriage to suit their own needs. It would be akin to telling women a century ago, “Hey, never in human history have women voted before. Therefore, you should not push to have the right to vote.” It is a ridiculous form of logic to propose.

What place did sexual activity have in all these historical variants of ‘marriage’?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

And history will show you also that marriage has been redefined multiple times across the centuries. It was not even considered a sacrament until the 12th century in the Latin West. For the most part it was considered a simple contract. While many began to seek the blessing of their local priest, clerical involvement was never necessary to validate a marriage. It was merely validated by the couple’s vows, and nothing more.

In light of this evidence, you would be hard pressed to tell anyone that they should not redefine marriage to suit their own needs. It would be akin to telling women a century ago, “Hey, never in human history have women voted before. Therefore, you should not push to have the right to vote.” It is a ridiculous form of logic to propose.

In truth marriage was NOT redefined until 2000, when the Netherlands allowed same sex couples to call their relationship a “marriage”. In this country, no State permitted same-sex marriage until the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in 2003 that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the State Constitution. Until then marriage was always defined as a union between one man and one woman.

The family is an ancient and universal human institution. Family structure reflects the characteristics of a civilization, and changes in family structure and in the popular understanding of marriage and the family can have profound effects.

Historically speaking, the only “change” in the understanding of marriage was the gradual ascendance of the idea that romantic love (as opposed to arranged marriage) is a prerequisite. This had far-reaching consequences. But the process by which such consequences come about is complex, involving the interaction of numerous factors, and tends to occur over an extended period of time.

Today this redefinition is being “fast-tracked”.

At present, no one, including social scientists, philosophers, and historians, can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment.

If the Constitution contained a provision guaranteeing the right to marry a person of the same sex, it would be the duty of the Supreme Court to enforce that right. But the Constitution simply does not speak to the issue of same-sex marriage. In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny. Any change on a question so fundamental should be made by the people through their elected officials. Not by judges.

 

[ajecphotos]

I can see a time when cross-dressing men will be allowed as priests in some denominations!! Totally disgusting as is gay vicars and same sex couples / marriage etc.