Should all Catholics oppose legalizing gay marriage?

[exnihilo]

1. You can’t impose your religion on other people. “It’s a sin according to my religion” isn’t good enough to make something illegal.

Why cant you? Instead of religion lets use beliefs. And using that word everyone, atheists, pagan, Christian and more imposes their beliefs on other people through the law. Beliefs about right and wrong are what lead to laws. In fact the idea that it is right to let gays marry is what leads to that law. That is imposing a belief. So the question is why are Christians particularly excluded from allowing their beliefs to form the law?

1. The commonly thrown around argument that kids will somehow be psychologically ****ed up if they are raised by two parents of the same gender is completely bogus and there is no data to back it up. Some researcher tried to prove this years ago in Denmark or something and failed. Studies show it’s about the love the child receives from the parents, not their gender.

Psychology is not a very reliable tool. Psychology not that long ago called homosexuality a mental illness.

1. The other common argument, the reductio ad absurdum one, is a logically fallacy. “If we let them marry then we have to let bla bla bla.”

Not really. If marriage is a social construct then it can be anything. Either marriage has an objective meaning or not. Since even the homosexuals have to admit that marriage has always meant between a man and a woman they are unable to say it has any true meaning. Thus we can keep redefining it.

 

[Corki]

I really don’t understand why anyone at all, Catholic or not would be opposed to same sex marriage.

1. You can’t impose your religion on other people. “It’s a sin according to my religion” isn’t good enough to make something illegal.
2. The commonly thrown around argument that kids will somehow be psychologically ****ed up if they are raised by two parents of the same gender is completely bogus and there is no data to back it up. Some researcher tried to prove this years ago in Denmark or something and failed. Studies show it’s about the love the child receives from the parents, not their gender.
3. The other common argument, the reductio ad absurdum one, is a logically fallacy. “If we let them marry then we have to let bla bla bla.”
4. Maybe Catholics and other religious people opposed to gay marriage feel like they’re some how condoning it by not caring. That’s dumb. I really don’t see why anyone would care.

1. Valuing traditional marriage is not a Catholic issue. What is it, 38 states now that have laws or constitutional ammendments protecting marriage as between one man and one woman? That didn’t happen just because Catholics or even just because Christians wanted it. One man - one woman marriage is older than western civilizaton.
2. The issue of same-sex partners adopting is only a tangential issue to same-sex “marriage”. There are many things that make a family successful. Growing up with both a mother and a father has been shown to be especially beneficial for children.
3. It’s actually the “slippery slope” argument. It is sometimes a logical falacy but not always. In the case of same-sex “marriage” it didn’t take more than a week or two after the NY decision for polygamists to sue for their “rights” to re-define marriage too.
4. We care because it affects us and our children and the way we live our lives. “not caring” implies apathy. Even the same-sex “marriage” activists don’t want apathy, they want whole-hearted approval and acceptance which they aren’t going to get from me.

 

[mystagogia]

Oppose gay marriage. Our Savior Himself said that marriage was not meant for everyone. So do not buy these egalitarian rights-based arguments. No right to marriage exists. If you’re a man, you’ve got to find a woman who will agree to it, and vice versa. You have not right to expect or demand that it happen. Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman that binds them as one flesh. It is not a right. It is an honor and a privilege; it is a sacrament.

Gay marriage is a Trojan Horse purposely meant to weaken that sacrament. It is an attack on the traditional family; it is a purposeful re-definition of it for human-inspired social engineering purposes. It is not divinely given, it is a base construct. It is dangerous to the health not only to society but also to the members and especially the children of a gay marriage.

Oppose gay marriage.

 

[ivebeenshown]

1. You can’t impose your religion on other people. “It’s a sin according to my religion” isn’t good enough to make something illegal.

That’s obvious, so it then becomes a matter of WHY it is unacceptable, not simply that it is unacceptable.

1. The commonly thrown around argument that kids will somehow be psychologically ****ed up if they are raised by two parents of the same gender is completely bogus and there is no data to back it up. Some researcher tried to prove this years ago in Denmark or something and failed. Studies show it’s about the love the child receives from the parents, not their gender.

1. The other common argument, the reductio ad absurdum one, is a logically fallacy. “If we let them marry then we have to let bla bla bla.”

It’s not a logically valid argument against it, true, but neither is “it’s two adults consenting therefore it’s perfectly moral.”

1. Maybe Catholics and other religious people opposed to gay marriage feel like they’re some how condoning it by not caring. That’s dumb. I really don’t see why anyone would care.

We care because we believe it is a sin, and if we express any approval for sin we are accomplices.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes, all Catholics must oppose the legalization of same-sex “marriages”.
DOCTRINAL NOTE on Some Questions Regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life
This document may have been one of the embedded links in the articles Elizabeth posted. I just wanted to point out that it’s not just the USCCB, this is the teaching for the whole Church.

Good reminder. Naturally I included the USCCB documents because specific mention was made about “priests and bishops” and an incorrect assertion made about the scope of the reason for the opposition (supposedly limited to personal “sin”). But you’re right. At least one other person cited a Vatican document. This is universal doctrine, not just U.S.

For those still, or newly, in the discussion: Civil law, at least in the Western World, has always had values and morals built into it. Civil law is never just reduced to contractual arrangements between two people, in its principles. Even when generating a contract between two people, there are provisions, depending on the nature of the contract (business, personal, property, etc.) to ensure that others affected by that contract, or potentially affected, will not have their needs and requirements invalidated or reduced. IOW, all civil law has an overarching goal of the common good. Marriage is not just a contract between two people. It has never been seen that way in the law. It is one of the institutions which exists for the common good, as the household is considered the essential building block for the formation of persons in a well-ordered society, guided by the distinct attributes of personhood built into males and females, differently.

 

[RosaryFan]

For those still, or newly, in the discussion: Civil law, at least in the Western World, has always had values and morals built into it. Civil law is never just reduced to contractual arrangements between two people, in its principles. Even when generating a contract between two people, there are provisions, depending on the nature of the contract (business, personal, property, etc.) to ensure that others affected by that contract, or potentially affected, will not have their needs and requirements invalidated or reduced. IOW, all civil law has an overarching goal of the common good. Marriage is not just a contract between two people. It has never been seen that way in the law. It is one of the institutions which exists for the common good, as the household is considered the essential building block for the formation of persons in a well-ordered society, guided by the distinct attributes of personhood built into males and females, differently.

 

[sw85]

I really don’t understand why anyone at all, Catholic or not would be opposed to same sex marriage.

Ordinarily, we would take that as evidence of your ignorance, not your sophistication.

I don’t mean that in a nasty way, by the way – a lot of people are ignorant about the Church’s rationale, including (far too many) Catholics, including many on these forums. It just tickles me that some people say things like “I don’t see why” or “I don’t know why” is an argument in itself.

1. You can’t impose your religion on other people. “It’s a sin according to my religion” isn’t good enough to make something illegal.

But the Church’s position isn’t “it’s wrong because we said so.” The Church’s position stems from a rational and objective consideration of the purpose of the human sexual faculty.

1. The commonly thrown around argument that kids will somehow be psychologically ****ed up if they are raised by two parents of the same gender is completely bogus and there is no data to back it up. Some researcher tried to prove this years ago in Denmark or something and failed. Studies show it’s about the love the child receives from the parents, not their gender.

That’s not the Church’s argument, though. That would be a consequentialist argument, and the Church stridently rejects consequentialist ethics.

Even if adoptive gay parents produced outcomes as desirable as biological straight parents, homosexuality would still be morally illicit and homosexual “marriage” would still be an ontological non sequitur.

1. The other common argument, the reductio ad absurdum one, is a logically fallacy. “If we let them marry then we have to let bla bla bla.”

Well, there’s something to be said for that. If we let gays marry, it can only mean because marriage does not serve the end of procreation. But that would imply a right to polygamy.

It would also imply a right to bestiality, necrophilia, incest, etc. etc. Why not? After all, it’s “not our business,” right? And our objections to these things are just irrational dogma?

1. Maybe Catholics and other religious people opposed to gay marriage feel like they’re some how condoning it by not caring. That’s dumb. I really don’t see why anyone would care.

That you can’t see why anyone would care doesn’t mean there’s no reason for anyone to care.

Depends on who you ask. That’s like asking “What is the purpose of owning a pet?” and expecting there to only one legitimate answer. Maybe some people love animals so they get pets. Maybe some people need a guard dog because they live in a dangerous neighborhood. Maybe some people are blind and need an animal to walk them around. Maybe some people have to use them in their job to sniff out drugs.

Maybe some people do it out of love. Maybe they want to have kids and are under the sad impression that some invisible man in the sky gets very pissed off if they have kids outside of marriage. Maybe they want tax benefits. Maybe one of them wants to become a citizen of the USA.

If you legitimately believe that marriage serves no objective purpose, why would you support expanding it and not simply doing away with it entirely?

And if you’re going to approach this discussion by automatically discounting the tenets of our faith, then you have begun by begging the question – an act of bad faith.

 

[Joe_5859]

I really don’t understand why anyone at all, Catholic or not would be opposed to same sex marriage.

If you do not understand why someone would be opposed, I would highly recommend reading the CDF’s statement: Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons.

Pay careful attention to Section III: Arguments from Reason Against Legal Recognition of Homosezual Unions. This is not a religious issue.

 

[EasterJoy]

If you do not understand why someone would be opposed, I would highly recommend reading the CDF’s statement: Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons.

Pay careful attention to Section III: Arguments from Reason Against Legal Recognition of Homosezual Unions. This is not a religious issue.

Excellent link. The conclusion reads as follows:

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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?

None of the above examples are institutions that the government encourages, protects and supports. Marriage is. That, in a nutshell, is the difference.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

If you do not understand why someone would be opposed, I would highly recommend reading the CDF’s statement: Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons.

Pay careful attention to Section III: Arguments from Reason Against Legal Recognition of Homosezual Unions. This is not a religious issue.

Excellent points. I like the following paragraph, which responds to the often stated “unjust discrimination” argument:

The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

Catholic Answers also prepared a report on so-called “Gay Marriage” that cites to outside studies and sources to support much of the same arguments. A link to the article is here The article ends with the comment:

Society has a lot to lose from legalizing homosexual marriage. And homosexuals have nothing to gain.

It is true. Legalizing gay marriage will not create a clean conscience, nor will it cause society to accept homosexuality. It will simply do more to empty marriage of its meaning.

Peace,
Robert

 

[EasterJoy]

It is true. Legalizing gay marriage will not create a clean conscience, nor will it cause society to accept homosexuality. It will simply do more to empty marriage of its meaning.

Having said that, we have a situation where adults who live together can’t provide innocent and necessary benefits for each other, such as extending health insurance. While we cannot participate in something that makes the illegitimate pretend legitimacy, we can promote legal arrangements that have a good use, even if they can be put to a bad use. This is why Archbishop Vlazny of Portland stressed that the Church would allow certain laws which would allow adults who cannot marry each other to give each other reciprocal benefits: catholicsentinel55.1upprelaunch.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=35&ArticleID=1643.

The bishops statement says in part:
In recognition of the fact that there are many people who live together for friendship, companionship and mutual economic support, the concept of reciprocal beneficiaries, with benefits such as survivorship rights, has been advanced. Since reciprocal beneficiaries are dependent on two adults, for example a mother and daughter, being mutually supportive of each other, many people, particularly elderly parents and people with disabilities, would benefit from such a public policy. In general the Oregon Catholic Conference could support a reciprocal beneficiaries public policy as advancing the common good for a significant number of adults in society.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Having said that, we have a situation where adults who live together can’t provide innocent and necessary benefits for each other, such as extending health insurance. While we cannot participate in something that makes the illegitimate pretend legitimacy, we can promote legal arrangements that have a good use, even if they can be put to a bad use. This is why Archbishop Vlazny of Portland stressed that the Church would allow certain laws which would allow adults who cannot marry each other to give each other reciprocal benefits: catholicsentinel55.1upprelaunch.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=35&ArticleID=1643.

The bishops statement says in part:
In recognition of the fact that there are many people who live together for friendship, companionship and mutual economic support, the concept of reciprocal beneficiaries, with benefits such as survivorship rights, has been advanced. Since reciprocal beneficiaries are dependent on two adults, for example a mother and daughter, being mutually supportive of each other, many people, particularly elderly parents and people with disabilities, would benefit from such a public policy. In general the Oregon Catholic Conference could support a reciprocal beneficiaries public policy as advancing the common good for a significant number of adults in society.

I’ve actually always agreed with this thinking – way back when I had a close non-sexual relationship with a friend who was, and is, unattached. While marriage itself should have some exclusive prerogatives (because of its exceptional and fundamental value to the state), other kinds of relationships have different legitimacies which should be supported in a different manner for the common good.

 

[sw85]

Having said that, we have a situation where adults who live together can’t provide innocent and necessary benefits for each other, such as extending health insurance.

Extending health insurance to spouses and children makes sense because it’s necessary for one to discharge one’s duty to provide for one’s family.

It does not make sense to extend it to one’s illicit sexual partners.

 

[Gift_from_God]

Three of those, pre-marital sex, lying and adultery, are violations of Natural Law, and therefore SHOULD be illegal.

Government has no right to be in our bedrooms. As for lying, it’s already illegal under some circumstances

 

[Elizabeth502]

Government has no right to be in our bedrooms. As for lying, it’s already illegal under some circumstances

It’s not about our “bedrooms.” Sexual activity among consenting adults of either/both sexes is already legal. It’s about the legitimate right of government to manage its own jurisdiction (the various justice departments and local governments), without being politically forced to accede to demands of a minority which wants to change society wholesale, against legitimate public (goernmental) priorities for that society.

 

[sw85]

Government has no right to be in our bedrooms. As for lying, it’s already illegal under some circumstances

So do you repealing marriage law entirely, then?

 

[exnihilo]

Government has no right to be in our bedrooms. As for lying, it’s already illegal under some circumstances

So government can tell us what we have to pay our employees. It can tell us we cant hire whom we want or engage in trade with whom we want. I can tell us what chemicals we can take. It can tell us what plants we can grow and how much. It can tell us what kind of lightbulbs we can buy. But it cant tell us whom we can have sex with and not to have abortions. You’ll forgive me but I dont really understand what principles are in operation here.

 

[EasterJoy]

Extending health insurance to spouses and children makes sense because it’s necessary for one to discharge one’s duty to provide for one’s family.

It does not make sense to extend it to one’s illicit sexual partners.

The thing is, you can have a roommate and a mutual support arrangement that is licit quite apart from the sexual aspect of your relationship. Maybe the roommates don’t even have a sexual relationship. It isn’t getting health insurance for your long-term roommate that the Church has an issue with. It is the sexual relationship.

The Church doesn’t have an issue with laws that provide benefits that can be put to legitimate use. We don’t have to oppose that, and the interests of charity and justice may even require that we support it, when mutual reciprocal benefits have a legitimate use. Gay marriage, however, institutionalizes the illicit sexual relationship. That is what we have a duty to oppose, even though there are aspects to the arrangement that might have otherwise been something we would support.

If the issue is being fair to homosexuals–for instance, to make certain that they are not denied housing or jobs or that they lack protection from violence or persecution–then we have to support that. It is homosexual behaviors that we are bound to oppose.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Having said that, we have a situation where adults who live together can’t provide innocent and necessary benefits for each other, such as extending health insurance. While we cannot participate in something that makes the illegitimate pretend legitimacy, we can promote legal arrangements that have a good use, even if they can be put to a bad use. This is why Archbishop Vlazny of Portland stressed that the Church would allow certain laws which would allow adults who cannot marry each other to give each other reciprocal benefits: catholicsentinel55.1upprelaunch.com/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=35&ArticleID=1643.

The bishops statement says in part:
In recognition of the fact that there are many people who live together for friendship, companionship and mutual economic support, the concept of reciprocal beneficiaries, with benefits such as survivorship rights, has been advanced. Since reciprocal beneficiaries are dependent on two adults, for example a mother and daughter, being mutually supportive of each other, many people, particularly elderly parents and people with disabilities, would benefit from such a public policy. In general the Oregon Catholic Conference could support a reciprocal beneficiaries public policy as advancing the common good for a significant number of adults in society.

My state already has the Domestic Partnership Act that extends full benefits to any registered couple (M-M, M-F, F-F), and is to be liberally interpreted to give the full panoply of rights to such couples as if they were married. My state is California. So, the fight over “Gay Marriage” really has nothing to do with increasing legal rights and benefits. It really is simply about the right to call a same-sex union a marriage.

Peace,
Robert