Should all Catholics oppose legalizing gay marriage?

[sw85]

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.

The problem is that, historically, the reason for civil marriage has been identical to the reason for sacramental marriage. And ultimately the rationale behind sacramental marriage is not so much divine revelation as simple natural law philosophy. When you say it is merely a religious definition, you are expressing, first, that you don’t really understand the Church’s position on here, and second, that a religious definition of marriage is necessarily irrational and therefore not a suitable basis for social policy.

Civil marriage is not merely a contract to grant people privileges (otherwise there’d be no reason to have marriage law; contract law would suffice). It is aimed at granting specific people specific rights – rights which pertain to their duty to procreate and raise a family responsibly.

To redefine civil marriage to include homosexuals is in a very meaningful sense a redefinition of the institution itself. It subordinates the rationality of the marital institution, reducing it to the level of a mere hand-out to favored political constituencies. And laws which have no rational basis are illegitimate and therefore necessarily unjust.

The way you define marriage, after all, in no way furnishes a basis for limiting marriage rights to explicitly sexual relationships. There should be no reason to limit marriage to two people (procreation doesn’t matter, after all), or to unrelated people, for instance. This would imply a civil right not only to polygamy and incest, but the right to have polygamous and incestuous relationships endorsed by the state.

At any rate, even if it were the case that the Church’s definition of marriage were based on revelation and not reason, I don’t see that that matters. Separation of church and state simply means that religious beliefs are not *entitled *to predominate, not that they cannot ever do so. They must complete in the democratic marketplace of ideas, not be enthroned in the law merely because the Church has said so.

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?

Well, we’re not talking about outlawing homosexuality here, merely not extending it the same legal recognition because homosexual behavior is not a matter of public interest where heterosexual behavior is.

Though it would certainly be legitimate for government to outlaw any and all of those things if it could do so without more grievously violating natural rights. The reason it doesn’t is simply that it can’t.

 

[jondavidnd1]

@sw85 - your points are valid and well made. From reading everyone’s statements and looking over the provided links (thanks also to Joe 5859) I realize that I have misunderstood the churches teaching on this issue.

I’ll will certainly need to reexamine my views and pray for help and guidance.

Thanks everyone.

There were a few people (small minority) who left comments that were biting, unhelpful, or simple carried an attitude of arrogance and disdain. I would say to those people that they are hurting, not helping to bring people closer to the Catholic faith, and if they cannot dispense information about our faith with an attitude of love and understanding the forum would be better off without them.

 

[sw85]

@sw85 - your points are valid and well made. From reading everyone’s statements and looking over the provided links (thanks also to Joe 5859) I realize that I have misunderstood the churches teaching on this issue.

I’ll will certainly need to reexamine my views and pray for help and guidance.

Thanks everyone.

There were a few people (small minority) who left comments that were biting, unhelpful, or simple carried an attitude of arrogance and disdain. I would say to those people that they are hurting, not helping to bring people closer to the Catholic faith, and if they cannot dispense information about our faith with an attitude of love and understanding the forum would be better off without them.

Glad I could help. If you’re interested in a fuller treatment of natural law theory (including its application to sexual morality), you might pick up Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition. A very good layman’s review of the Church’s philosophical tradition with some very useful applications.

 

[Brendan]

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?

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

All other sins, some of which are violations of Divine Revelation, and those are best regulated by the Church.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Recent and current discussions already in progress on this forum:

The Holy Father …wants to see the bishops tell the laity how to deal with the politicians in a way that protects the right of the Church to be free of influence from the State, but does not leave the state room to be free of the Church’s moral guidance.

Catholics in the USA have allowed the government too much freedom. Bl. John Paul said this to American Catholics on several occasions. I remember when he came to Baltimore, he blasted American Catholics for allowing the State to regulate morality. He argued that American Catholics had not made good use of democracy by making it a goal in life rather than a means for evangelization. Pope Benedict feels the same way. When he speaks to American clergy and religious, this is his constant theme.

We live in a society where religion is to be free from the interference of the State. We should take advantage of that freedom to tell the State what is right and what is wrong and to guide the State. We have misunderstood. We have supported the myth that says there is such a thing as separation between Church and State. This is impossible, because the men and women who make up the Church are citizens of this nation. We have the right to demand that the State listen and that the State not trespass in areas of faith and morals.

The Founding Fathers never said there was such a separation. In fact, Jefferson said that the state could not exist without religion. The State was to stay out of religion, not religion out of the State. The Constitution does not say separation of Church and State. The presidents who have governed our nation have always invoked God. Congress begins the day with prayer. In fact, it’s new chaplain is a Jesuit priest, theologian and lawyer.

Violating the moral standards of God have negative ramifications for our society. The idea that marraige is not a sacred institution to be guarded has led to a massive divorce rate, as well as a ridiculous number of children being born out of wedlock. In turn, we must note that these children are VASTLY more likely to be poor, commit crimes, and have children out of wedlock themselves… in other words, the death of marraige as a sacred and vital institution in our culture is feeding a cycle of degeneration because Christian morality is not just about what God wants, but about what is good for us (both as individuals and as society).

So we’re going to have homosexual “marraiges” (civil shams that are somehow given secular-moral equivalancy with sacred marraiges), more children raised without the balance of a mother/father, and more degeneration of the absolute NEED of a society for a strong family structure which produces well rounded children.

It’s not that homosexuality alone is the gunshot that’s going to kill traditional marraige: it’s that it’s just another nail in the coffin of our culture due to the degeneration of the traditional values and sacred institutions that made us strong to begin with.

here are some that talks about why two parents of the same sex are harmful to the child:

youtu.be/0UJ1ekB–Fo
drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_samesex.html

gay couples do not confine themselves to raising orphans. Rather, they look outside their same-sex relationship to find someone who will give them the biological means to have their own biological child. It will be the enshrinement of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, arranged to meet the satisfaction of the parents.

If gay marriage is institutionalized, the practice of purposefully raising children away from at least one of their biological parents, parents who are neither dead nor unfit, is going to be institutionalized right along with it.

This is becoming increasingly accepted, both inside the gay movement and among singles who don’t care to be tied to a marriage partner. Children are becoming a commodity, not people who are loved regardless of how they were conceived, but rather people who were brought into being in order to fulfill the desires of adults. It takes neither a bigot nor a theocrat to see something wrong with that.

[cont’d…]

 

[Elizabeth502]

[cont’d]:

Continuing with referencing current and active discussions on this forum:

A nuclear family is defined as a family group consisting of a father and mother and their children, all exclusively sharing living quarters. This is in contrast to the smaller single-parent family, and to the larger extended family. Nuclear families may have any number of children. There are slight differences in definition among observers; some definitions allow only biological children that are full-blood siblings, while others allow for a stepparent and any mix of dependent children including stepchildren and adopted children.

Merriam-Webster dates the term back to 1947, whilst the Oxford English Dictionary has a reference to the term from 1924; thus it is relatively new, although nuclear family structures themselves date back thousands of years. The term nuclear is used in its general meaning referring to a central entity or “nucleus” around which others collect.

In its most common usage, the term nuclear family refers to a household consisting of a father, a mother and their children all in one household dwelling. George Murdock, an early and influential observer of families, describes the term in this way:

The family is a social group characterized by common residence, economic cooperation and reproduction. It contains adults of both sexes, at least two of whom maintain a socially approved sexual relationship, and one or more children, own or adopted, of the sexually cohabiting adults.

Many individuals are part of two nuclear families in their lives: the family of origin in which they are offspring, and the family of procreation in which they are a parent.

Nowhere does the meaning have it that the nuclear family is a family unit of two same-sex parents and children with whom one or both do not have a biological connection, or of two same-sex parents who happen to be successful in adopting children.

 

[LemonAndLime]

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

All other sins, some of which are violations of Divine Revelation, and those are best regulated by the Church.

Just a few issues with that. Let’s say I was raped. I then went to court to prove I was raped. The accused was found not guilty. That assumes that I was telling lies and the accusation against him was false. So I could be jailed for telling lies. Then, I would be jailed AGAIN, for admitting to having had pre-martial sex, which also falls under the umbrella of adultry.

I mean, what would happen if some countries had laws like that? Hang on, I’m pretty sure Saudi Arabia have a similar system…

 

[Elizabeth502]

More on current, active discussions on this discussion forum, which continue to answer questions posed by the OP:

Why is it that when a person, who derives their system of morality from a belief in God, stands up to defend a particular legal issue, they are “imposing their rules onto others”? But when the atheist, who doesn’t know where his/her system of morality is derived from, stands up to defend a particular legal issue, it’s suddenly not an imposition, but rather, a “rational argument”?

This type of hypocrisy reveals ignorance in how human beings formulate their beliefs. It’s as if, because you’re atheist, you get to claim you have “rational” beliefs and “rational” arguments. And you get to do this because you think that so long as you cannot determine where your sense of morality comes from, you are free to argue your case without being challenged about your “imposition” of your beliefs onto others.

Look, the atheist activist and the theist activist both impose their beliefs into any debate which seeks to define and express moral issues. Your vote for same sex marriage is an imposition of your rules (beliefs) onto me and every other person in this country who believes it is immoral. You know, what if our religion taught us that same-sex marriage was a moral act? Would you claim that we are “imposing” our rules on others by arguing in town square in support of same sex marriage? I highly doubt it. Why? Because you are in agreement with that position. As soon as we disagree with your position, however, you throw out the “imposition” flag. What nonsense. If murder became legal in this country, we would argue against it ultimately because of our Christian belief that it is immoral. Would you claim we were imposing our rules on others to argue against murder for that reason? Or would you be okay because you agree murder is wrong?

The “imposition” argument is at best naive, and at worst underhanded trickery.

The discussion is whether society has a stake in answering this question …the discussion in this country is about whether the two kinds of relationships are the same, because that is the hinge of the argument contending that homosexuals ought to be admitted to marriage on the same basis as heterosexuals. Meaning: same gender-nonspecific marriage license, spaces on birth certificates for the health department that list “parent 1” and “parent 2” instead of the biological mom and dad, you name it.

The Church can see that political discourse is saying that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are the same. Why can’t the Church live with that? Because it is false and because society will suffer by the official promulgation of that falsehood in civil law.

Catholics in a democracy have a duty to participate in politics so as to enact laws that will support justice and the common welfare. It is not enough to defend the state of marriage within our enclave. We are bound to support laws, including the laws governing marriage, that will have a just and good effect on the rest of society.

The Church does see even natural marriage, civil marriage, as something rooted in natural law, which is another way of saying that it is rooted into a recognition of the way human society necessarily works (or fails to work) by its very nature. Natural law is not some deus ex machina invented by the Church to sneak religious belief onto the unbelievers. It is a recognition that humankind, religious or not, operates according to certain principles, principles that the behavior of non-believers show are recognisable even by non-religious people. She does not see civil law as arbitrary or divorced from the laws of cause and effect. Rather, good law reflects the truth about who we are as human beings, a truth that can be seen without divine revelation. The Church also knows that voters in a democracy are ethically bound to consider natural cause and effect when enacting, striking down, or enforcing civil law.

For some reason, Christians are being told and some Christians are actually beginnning to believe that we’re supposed to treat the truth as if it were an arbitrary opinion. We are being told that to tell the truth is to push our view of the world on everyone else. Is this the standard everyone else holds themselves to? Of course not! An atheist can hold a political view that is directly opposed to plain biological fact, and that’s OK, because “everyone is entitled to his opinion.”

 

[Captain_America]

The simple answer is the right answer: homosexuality is a behavior disorder that is harmful to people. Why encourage it? Homosexual “marriage” is condoning this harmful addiction.

 

[Joe_5859]

Just a few issues with that. Let’s say I was raped. I then went to court to prove I was raped. The accused was found not guilty. That assumes that I was telling lies and the accusation against him was false. So I could be jailed for telling lies. Then, I would be jailed AGAIN, for admitting to having had pre-martial sex, which also falls under the umbrella of adultry.

I mean, what would happen if some countries had laws like that? Hang on, I’m pretty sure Saudi Arabia have a similar system…

I’m not weighing in one way or the other on this particular issue (illegalization of that which is against the natural moral law), but I would just say that not everything that is “illegal” is punishable by being sent to jail. There are a great many things that result in simple fines, written citations, etc. Even if pre-marital sex were made illegal, I doubt that the punishment would be imprisonment.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I’m not weighing in one way or the other on this particular issue (illegalization of that which is against the natural moral law), but I would just say that not everything that is “illegal” is punishable by being sent to jail. There are a great many things that result in simple fines, written citations, etc. Even if pre-marital sex were made illegal, I doubt that the punishment would be imprisonment.

And I doubt that it would be enforce-able

 

[Elizabeth502]

Homosexual “marriage” is an artificial construct which opposes the entire ethic of life, which both bishops and priests have informed lay Catholics should govern their decision-making about civil issues. It is unfortunate if any particular parish priest has neglected to clarify this for his parishioners. Catholic social teaching should be linked on every online parish bulletin. This is not a complicated project, but could be accomplished by the mere directive of every Catholic bishop in every diocese worldwide. That directive would in turn pass through the pastor to those responsible for publishing the weekly bulletins. It should take like 2-4 weeks maximum to accomplish this, even in clustered, lightly served parishes.

That Catholic morality, which is a mandate for an active Catholic, requires an orientation to everything in society which supports that ethic of life and against everything which undermines it. Those life principles have at their center the essential and radical complementariness of male and female (one of each), who alone have the potential to be both unitive and procreative in their relationship.

Divine law does not stop at the church doors but affects all of society, and is dismissed or opposed to the peril of all. And yes, other offenses against monogamous traditional, properly defined marriage also affect society (as a whole) negatively: such as bigamy, such as heterosexual cohabitation, such as rampant promiscuity, such as disrespect of the covenant of marriage through casual acceptance of divorce, such as pornography addiction even among those married (which is destructive to the marriage), etc.

Homosexual ‘marriage’ is a Life issue. And every life-long Catholic should have already been taught that this ethic of Life is not merely the absence of murder. Exceptions would be someone who is very recent to the faith – such as, completed their RCIA on Easter of 2011. I am making this as a general statement, not directed to anyone in particular, but applicable to the many Catholics who visit CAF with insufficient knowledge of their faith. Steps such as I suggest above (from the clergy) would certainly help, i.m.o., to correct these misunderstandings. (Nevertheless, of course, every Catholic has undoubtedly been taught, at some point, that every Catholic beyond Confirmation has an affirmative duty to investigate the moral teachings, including to investigate any published documents which apply those moral teachings to contemporary issues.) I will admit that it’s a struggle. It is not, however, more of a struggle to differentiate secular from Catholic understandings, than it is to differentiate fact from opinion in secular journalism, nor intellectual arguments vs. emotional and popular arguments.

Any arguments for such an artifice, by any Catholic, cannot be supported because they borrow assumptions from the secular world which practicing Catholics reject: such as the notion that somehow ‘monogramy’ and/or ‘commitment’ are concepts which sanctify an unsanctifiable relationship. Monogamy, properly understood, belongs to the realm of marriage, not merely to any relationship. Second, an exclusively immoral relationship remains immoral nonetheless, beyond any religious definition of immoral, in that it opposes natural law. ‘Committing’ to a relationship which undermines one of the foundational institutions of society is merely a repetition and an attachment to that behavior; it, also, does not sanctify the relationship; rather it aggravates it. ‘Commitment’ to just any relationship is not a Catholic term. It’s a term cleverly introducd by the Gay Lobby to try to frame homosexual relationships within a moral construct. Catholics who know their moral theology from the Catechism (downloadable from the Vatican website) understand these distinctions.

Just to be a discerning agnostic or atheistic citizen, regarding arguments about issues, is enough of a challenge in a world filled with noise and lack of discipline about terminology and intellectual argument. As Catholics, we have to apply, each of us, at least as much discipline in discerning moral fact from moral fiction in the same noisy world which seems oriented more toward political advocacy at the expense of the common good than the common good itself.

 

[lolraichu]

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.

 

[RosaryFan]

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.

What is the purpose of marriage?

 

[lolraichu]

What is the purpose of marriage?

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.

edit;

You know several hundred years ago even the purpose of marriage was for status and gain. “You give me X amount of cows/land, etc in exchange for my daughter marrying your son.” What the man/woman getting married thought about the ordeal didn’t matter back then.

Who knows.

Who cares.

 

[jsaldar]

Yes all Catholics need to oppose the legalization of gay marriage. It is our duty as Catholics to oppose all forms of sin. Homosexual acts are a mortal sin and lead only to hell.

 

[RosaryFan]

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.

edit;

You know several hundred years ago even the purpose of marriage was for status and gain. “You give me X amount of cows/land, etc in exchange for my daughter marrying your son.” What the man/woman getting married thought about the ordeal didn’t matter back then.

Who knows.

Who cares.

Owning a pet may have many purposes, but marriage does not, or SHOULD not. I think you know the answer.

 

[FaithBuild18]

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.

Are you telling me… that you think gay people are going to get married and then NOT partake in homosexual acts?

 

[valentino]

Yes,All Catholics should oppose legalized gay marriage.I don’t speak for any other denomination or religion.The Pope opposes it and so should Catholics.

 

[Corki]

Yes, all Catholics must oppose the legalization of same-sex “marriages”.

**When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. **In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such.

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.