Should all Catholics oppose legalizing gay marriage?

[jondavidnd1]

Many catholics, including many priests and bishops, strongly oppose the legalization of gay marriage. I understand (or at least I think I do) the churches teaching on homosexual acts as a sin, and I agree with that teaching. However, I don’t see how this necessitates opposing the legalization of gay marriage as many Catholics have led me to believe.

Marriage in my eyes (and the eyes of every Catholic) is a sacrament, instituted by Jesus, that can only be received by a man and woman, in which God forms an unbreakable union of the two.

“Marriage”, in the government’s eyes, is a legal contract between two consenting adults that extends certain rights and privileges to the two people entering the contract. Privileges such as the right to file a joint tax return, the right to make medical decisions for the other, the right of easy transfer of property upon one’s death.

I don’t see why the governments definition of marriage should be any different, and also why that definition can’t apply to two men or two women.

For the government to define marriage in any sort of religious way (e.g. the way the Catholic church defines marriage) would undermine some of the basics tenets on which the U.S. governmental system was founded, namely freedom of religion.

In light of my arguments above, I am looking for a defense of the idea that the Catholic Church, and all Catholics in general, should oppose legalization of gay marriage. Thank you for your responses.

 

[CompSciGuy]

I tend to agree with you and held this position for a long time…
Many people argue against gay marriage because they are afraid that our government is “redefining” marriage. I don’t think this argument makes too much sense; how the government decides to recognize marriage has (or should have) no effect on the individual interpretation of marriage; the government exists as a place of common ground, governing over people of many different viewpoints and thus having to accommodate all according to constitutional and civil rights. It is important to recognize that a “secular government” should not be interpreted to mean “atheistic government.” The term secular simply means it favors no position over another.
However, when you really come to think about it, why exactly should same sex marriage be allowed? There are too many aspects of marriage as recognized by the state that do not apply to homosexual couples. Another reason why we tend to oppose gay marriage is out of concern for issues like homosexual adoption. This issue is so complicated; it is so unnatural for a child to be raised in a home with two moms or two dads. There really shouldn’t be any reason for this sort of thing to be allowed. I think the essence of conservatism (from my perspective) is that it tries to preserve the normal, natural state of our society in all its aspects whereas the other side tends to want to take things like family, etc. and twist them, bend them around, experiment/play with them and try to make them work in a way they were not meant to work, and call it good and just and progressive.

 

[smichhertz]

Homosexual acts are inherently harmful and we cannot allow laws that in anyway support, condone or encourage them. Just like we wouldn’t support a law legalizing recreational use of harmful drugs, so too we do not support laws that encourage harmful sexual behavior.

So, yes, Catholics should oppose legalizing gay marriage.

 

[Brendan]

“Marriage”, in the government’s eyes, is a legal contract between two consenting adults that extends certain rights and privileges to the two people entering the contract. Privileges such as the right to file a joint tax return, the right to make medical decisions for the other, the right of easy transfer of property upon one’s death.

Catholics have an obligation to insure that law reflect a just society. Justice, to a Catholic, is a divine virture (God IS Justice). Any act that offense God, by defintion, is an unjust act and thus should not be included in our civil laws.

God imparted Natural Law into our souls. It is our obligation to make our civil laws mirror Natural Law as closely as humanly possible.

homosexual acts are a violation of Natural Law, and thus civil law should oppose, not promote the excercise of homosexual acts.

 

[ERose]

What I recommend to you is do some research. Look at both points of view, but I would also recommend looking at the sociological data out there and stay away from the psychological stuff. Why? Because there is no science behind psychology. They don’t use the scientific method in psychology and as such it is much easier for politics and viewpoints to be used in psychology. Sociology uses the scientific method in the form of statistics and data gathering. Anyway you still have to be careful here as well, because in this day and age it has been determined that objectivism should not be used in science anymore, so trying to find unbias information can be a chore at times but it is still possible.

One of the biggest eyeopeners for me is a little report issued but pro-gay groups in Canada, which was filling a dispute against the Canadian healthcare system to the UN. I recommend reading this document since it comes from the horses mouth in a Country that allows same-sex unions.

exacom.net/firstlibrary/Articles/Moral%20Issues/Homosexuality/Health%20consequences/HRC%20complaint.pdf

The facts leads one to the opinion that the homosexual lifestyle is a destructive lifestyle that should not be condoned. We as Catholics by charity cannot condone a lifestyle that destroys so many lives and must stand up in defense of those who feel like they have no choice. Isn’t that what the pro-gay groups want to keep claiming and telling those who are leaning toward that lifestyle? You don’t have a choice. If you are gay you are gay and there is nothing you can do about it. Is that the truth though? We all have temptations and “thorns in our sides” whether we are born with them or received them through some bad decisions sometime in our lives. Alcohol, drugs, gambling, sex, porn, drugs, anger, overeating, etc. addictions are all just as intense of temptations and yet do we turn our backs upon these people? No we do not do we.

So why has society turned their backs to those who have strong same-sex attractions and want help? We all know that people who are gay are more likely to abuse drugs, be sexually addicted, commit suicide, die of anal cancer, etc. But as a society we have determined that these people are beyond our help and should not receive it. That is not an act of charity in my opinion. The only people offering these wayward souls charity is the Catholic Church and some other Christian groups.

 

[jondavidnd1]

Any act that offense God, by defintion, is an unjust act and thus should not be included in our civil laws.

By this logic, I would think that the Catholic church and its members would be striving to make pre-marital sex, adultery, lying, and any sin (all sins offend God) illegal.

Is there a difference?

 

[jondavidnd1]

Another reason why we tend to oppose gay marriage is out of concern for issues like homosexual adoption.

@CompSciGuy - First off, I find it kind of coincidental that you chimed in first with some similar thoughts as myself, because I am a CompSci grad.

Second, I have heard the adoption argument before, but I don’t know if it is a really compelling argument for not legalizing gay marriage. Ultimately the government’s decision in where to place an orphaned child should be in the place that maximizes the child’s health and well-being. And every potential adopter (gay, straight, single, married) should be evaluated with that in mind.

But what criteria the government uses to exclude people for adoption is dangerous. Do you not allow single people to adopt? Do you not allow Muslims to adopt? What if some atheist releases a “scientific study” that says Catholic children are 35% more likely to do drugs than non-catholic children. Does the government then exclude Catholics from adopting.

Now when it comes to Catholic Charities adoptions, there’s a whole different motivation in placing a child, which is the child’s ultimate salvation. For this reason, I think that any adoption which is facilitated by the Catholic church, without funding assistance from the government, should use a whole different set of criteria for accepting adoption candidates.

 

[ERose]

By this logic, I would think that the Catholic church and its members would be striving to make pre-marital sex, adultery, lying, and any sin (all sins offend God) illegal.

Is there a difference?

And she doesn’t? The Church usually make her point, when she is allowed to. For example, in the Philippines the Church fought against the legalization of divorce. She fights against minimum ages of sexual consent as well as contraception and abortion laws. The thing is we don’t see it for we don’t pay attention to it.

 

[ERose]

Now when it comes to Catholic Charities adoptions, there’s a whole different motivation in placing a child, which is the child’s ultimate salvation. For this reason, I think that any adoption which is facilitated by the Catholic church, without funding assistance from the government, should use a whole different set of criteria for accepting adoption candidates.

The problem is that where gay marriage has been allowed the state has forced adoption agencies to give children to gay couples, including Catholic agencies. So you get what has happened in the UK and in Washington D.C, where the Catholic adoption agencies had to close.

 

[exnihilo]

“Marriage”, in the government’s eyes, is a legal contract between two consenting adults that extends certain rights and privileges to the two people entering the contract. Privileges such as the right to file a joint tax return, the right to make medical decisions for the other, the right of easy transfer of property upon one’s death.

Marriage is a legal contract between two consenting adults one of who is male and the other female. Most everyone is either male or female thus most everyone has access to this contract. So it cant be said that the contract is not available to self claimed gays. What is not accessible is some contract between two of the same sex. But this is not available to anyone, not just homosexuals.

Your own wording mixes concepts. I’m not trying to be harsh just pointing out how easy it is to be confused based on popular thinking. You say the lack of gay marriage prohibits the privilege of the right to file a joint tax return. A right is not a privilege.

The law considers driving on a public road in a car to be a privilege. Thus you need a license. If it was a right then you would not need a license. You need no license to walk on the sidewalk because this is a right. Everyone needs a license from the state to marry, except for common law marriage. So marriage is not a right because you need a license. The state makes this abundantly clear when they have laws that say you can not marry your first cousin. I’ve yet to hear of any gay marriage advocates argue to get rid of these laws which demonstrates their hypocrisy.

For the government to define marriage in any sort of religious way (e.g. the way the Catholic church defines marriage) would undermine some of the basics tenets on which the U.S. governmental system was founded, namely freedom of religion.

The law contains the idea of morality. What is the justification for excluding any religious morality? Why is non-religious morality, which has a dubious existence, the only kind of morality that is good to write into the law?

By this logic, I would think that the Catholic church and its members would be striving to make pre-marital sex, adultery, lying, and any sin (all sins offend God) illegal.

Is there a difference?

Yes, there is a difference. What is the purpose of laws in the first place? Mostly it is to render justice for immoral acts. Thus the harm caused by the act is part of the calculation. The harm caused by not punishing the act, and thus allowing it to possibly flourish, is also a consideration.

No one is complaining that Christian religious law is being allowed when perjury (lying) is made illegal. Very few, for now, are complaining when an adult having sex with a child (pre-maritial sex) is made illegal. And adultery was illegal.

 

[RosaryFan]

Not only should all Catholics be opposed to gay marriage, but every human being with any concern for society should oppose gay marriage. Anyone who thinks homosexual marriage should be acceptable is being fooled. The purpose of marriage (civil or sacramental) is to create a family unit wherein the birth of children will aid in the continuation of our species. Since the family unit is the soul and strength of a healthy society, then how can the union of two people which is naturally disordered and unable to attain procreation be considered healthy for society? Any union between two entities which cannot and does not accomplish procreation and the continuation of our species should not be recognized as legal, valid or feasible.

What’s to stop society from, thereafter, allowing brothers and sisters to marry; or parents and children to marry?

Lastly, anyone who only looks at marriage as an opportunity for tax relief, medical benefits, contractual obligation fulfillments, etc., should be ashamed of themsleves and do not deserve to have a spouse. I would hate to think my spouse married me because I can provide joint medical coverage!

 

[MtnDwellar]

By this logic, I would think that the Catholic church and its members would be striving to make pre-marital sex, adultery, lying, and any sin (all sins offend God) illegal.

Is there a difference?

No. There is no difference, but, the Church is not in favor of making gay sex, pre-marital sex, adultery, etc. illegal. Gay marriage is the question.

 

[ERose]

Lastly, anyone who only looks at marriage as an opportunity for tax relief, medical benefits, contractual obligation fulfillments, etc., should be ashamed of themsleves and do not deserve to have a spouse. I would hate to think my spouse married me because I can provide joint medical coverage!

God bless you! Didn’t think about any of these “benefits” when I married my wife, yet now they are so important.

 

[LemonAndLime]

:doh2:

…

 

[Joe_5859]

Yes, all Catholics should be opposed to the legalization of same sex marriage and/or same sex civil unions.

If you want to see the Church’s excellent articulation of why this should be opposed, read the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s statement on the matter:

Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons

 

[Elizabeth502]

Many catholics, including many priests and bishops, strongly oppose the legalization of gay marriage. I understand (or at least I think I do) the churches teaching on homosexual acts as a sin, and I agree with that teaching.

This reveals that you have not read the documents. There’s not a single “priest or bishop” who has made public statements in published documents declaring that legislation opposition should be based on a concept of sin.

I don’t understand why I have to keep posting these documents, some of which may already be in the stickies at the top of this forum.

usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexstmt.shtml

usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexunions.shtml
(Links many documents on that one page)

faithfulcitizenship.org/media/article/mccord

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/bishopStatement.html

[The Church] does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends–as is its proper function–to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good.We urge our fellow citizens “to see beyond party politics, to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest.” As bishops, we seek to form the consciences of our people. We do not wish to instruct persons on how they should vote by endorsing or opposing candidates. We hope that voters will examine the position of candidates on the full range of issues, as well as on their personal integrity, philosophy, and performance. We are convinced that a consistent ethic of life should be the moral framework from which to address issues in the political arena.

For Catholics, the defense of human life and dignity is not a narrow cause, but a way of life and a framework for action. A key message of the Vatican statement on public life is that Catholics in politics must reflect the moral values of our faith with clear and consistent priority for the life and dignity of the human person.This is the fundamental moral measure of their service. The Vatican statement also points out:

It must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good.14 Decisions about candidates and choices about public policies require clear commitment to moral principles, careful discernment and prudential judgments based on the values of our faith.

God established the family as the basic cell of human society. Therefore, we must strive to make the needs and concerns of families a central national priority. Marriage must be protected as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman and our laws should reflect this principle… Marriage, as God intended, provides the basic foundation for family life and the common good. It must be supported in the face of the many pressures working to undermine it.

ccgaction.org/

^ Not to be confused with an organization of a similar name; the other organization includes the words ‘in alliance’; some of their positions oppose Church teaching.

Everyone: Parish priests, and bishops, are extremely busy these days. Each of them is doing the work of about three full-time clergymen. If we care about actually living our faith, it is up to each of us, as adults, to become informed about that faith, particularly as it affects civic issues. There really is no excuse for not taking the initiative in doing the research. It may be true that many Catholics want their priests to center homilies more around these contemporary issues, and less about moral behavior in the private sphere (linking scrripture readings to our prayer lives, growth in spiritualitty, etc.), but we are not in control of any priest’s homily content. He has to reach a wide audience, and priests do not want to spend all or even most of their homily time discussing political issues, for example. To expect that on any given Sunday, any random Mass we attend will include spoon-fed Catholic social teaching on the hot political topics of the day, is not realistic. Do not rely on the typical uninformed Catholic to be a reliable source.

 

[jondavidnd1]

The replies above bring up interesting thoughts and ideas on the role of government in a healthy society and the position of the Catholic Church. I appreciate the respectfulness of the dialog and the information that will help me shape my own beliefs.

I want to reiterate that I am opposed to gay marriage. I think that homosexual acts are sinful and that the Catholic Church and all Catholics should speak out against gay marriage and homosexual acts.

But of course, there is a difference between thinking something is wrong and thinking something should be illegal. It goes to the heart of what you think the role of government should be.

The issue I have with the government making laws that have religious arguments as their basis is this, what if the religion isn’t mine? I’m not going to follow any law that is not in accordance with Catholic Church teachings. If the US government, or any state government, started passing “Christian” or “Catholic” laws, our government would be no better than any country with an Islamic legal system where Christians must practice their faith illegally and secretly.

Anyways, I’m getting a bit off the original question, sorry.

 

[auderyja]

Many catholics, including many priests and bishops, strongly oppose the legalization of gay marriage. I understand (or at least I think I do) the churches teaching on homosexual acts as a sin, and I agree with that teaching. However, I don’t see how this necessitates opposing the legalization of gay marriage as many Catholics have led me to believe.

Marriage in my eyes (and the eyes of every Catholic) is a sacrament, instituted by Jesus, that can only be received by a man and woman, in which God forms an unbreakable union of the two.

“Marriage”, in the government’s eyes, is a legal contract between two consenting adults that extends certain rights and privileges to the two people entering the contract. Privileges such as the right to file a joint tax return, the right to make medical decisions for the other, the right of easy transfer of property upon one’s death.

I don’t see why the governments definition of marriage should be any different, and also why that definition can’t apply to two men or two women.

For the government to define marriage in any sort of religious way (e.g. the way the Catholic church defines marriage) would undermine some of the basics tenets on which the U.S. governmental system was founded, namely freedom of religion.

In light of my arguments above, I am looking for a defense of the idea that the Catholic Church, and all Catholics in general, should oppose legalization of gay marriage. Thank you for your responses.

Yes. Same-sex marriage destroys the very foundation of the family institution. While I do not condone to their lifestyle, they still deserve to know the truth and be saved. Let not one soul go to Lucifer! Pray for them.

 

[myboysmommy]

The very fact that gay marriages oppose Catholic values is reason enough to oppose them. We as Catholics are “supposed” to uphold the teachings, values and morals of the Church. When you have same sex relationships, it not only violates natural law, more importantly it violates Gods’ laws. Not to mention the whole issue of children being included in these relationships totally undermines the family. Robbing the child of a mother or a father, or telling them that it’s ok to pick and choose which of Gods’ laws we obey, in my mind is child abuse. We have enough children in this world growing up in single parent families that have to grow up without the benefit of a mother AND a father without adding more to that number. I think if you want to call yourself a Catholic you need to BE a Catholic. We need to honor the laws of God and follow the Church values and teachings. When we start worrying about being politically correct, WE are part of the problem. We have a responsibility to defend the Church and her teachings. If we DON’T oppose gay marriages, what’s next?

 

[exnihilo]

The issue I have with the government making laws that have religious arguments as their basis is this, what if the religion isn’t mine? I’m not going to follow any law that is not in accordance with Catholic Church teachings. If the US government, or any state government, started passing “Christian” or “Catholic” laws, our government would be no better than any country with an Islamic legal system where Christians must practice their faith illegally and secretly.

There is a difference in requiring or prohibiting religious practice and laws reflecting religious morality. I am not aware of any instance where the Christian world has required the practice of Christianity or prohibited the practice of another religion.

There is however a long history of the Christian world passing laws based on Christian morality. And this makes perfect sense. Whatever moral system you have will necessarily be the basis for your laws. And this is just as true for the atheist. The atheist wants the law to reflect his moral system. The issue then is not ever should morality be made into law as that is the very foundation of the law.

A simple examination of how the law is described tells us as much. When talking about the law people say ‘it is wrong to do this’ or ‘it is right to be obligated to do this’. That is morality. The law is morality. There is no reason religiously informed morality should be excluded. The average person cant even start to explain a moral system without God. It might be possible but the average person, who disclaims religious morality, has nothing to stand on using their own reason.