Should Catholic leaders make gay marriage illegal?

[phil19034]

buffalo:

Now We the people do and risky behaviors are more costly. I have an interest in lowering those costs.

I’ve been trying to avoid posting in this thread because I don’t feel like arguing in circles again, but how exactly is ssm risky behavior?

It’s risky for men, not for women. It can lead to colon cancer and other issues with their bowels. Even a lifetime, single partner relationship for men, if they are sexually active, it is physically very risky for them.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I think we have it: ‘SSM does not affect an individual couple’s marriage’. Of course it doesn’t. And a marriage is what the two people deem it to be.

You have no right whatsoever to dictate to anyone what their marriage should be. None at all. Would you like to tell me what my marriage should mean to myself and my wife? Do you really think you have the right to tell me why I could and couldn’t get married? Do you want to dictate to me whether we shoild have children or not? Or whether we use contraception? Or what we do in the privacy of our own home? Seriously?

Because that’s what you are proposing. That all marriages have to conform with a rigid set of rules that your church requires.

You really don’t want me to tell you what I think of that.

For thousands of years, this is how marriage worked all over Christendom. Today, it’s still that way in the Catholic Church.

The fact that something’s been going on for a long time is not an argument for maintaining it. And yes, it’s still the teaching of the church. Which over 60% of Catholics (in tbe US) reject. So that’s not carrying a lot of weight when it comes to everyone else.

When you only have 3 in 10 of all Catholics agreeing with you, it kinda undermines your argument that this a Catholic position. It’s the position of your church. Not the laity.

 

[sealabeag]

The Church is not a democracy. So… Even if 99% of lay Catholics disagree with a teaching, it makes no difference.

 

[TMC]

Life is tough. We can and do all the time. Religion proposes its tenets to we the people. These are our roots.

Great, so I am sure you would be perfectly happy when someone else’s religion is forced on you?

 

[Freddy]

The can if they want, to correct a previously errant law… It’s really only clarifying a human right that already existed.

Agreed…

 

[Neithan]

The government should not presume to declare what is or is not a marriage. This whole debacle shows that marriage should be defined by the people getting married. We all know that it’s a natural reality between persons of each sex. No declaration of any court can change an ancient social order based on natural biology. What we do have to respect is equal dignity and freedom of contract; it would be prudent for Catholics in the judiciary and the legislature to clarify the nuances.

 

[phil19034]

When you only have 3 in 10 of all Catholics agreeing with you, it kinda undermines your argument that this a Catholic position. It’s the position of your church. Not the laity.

Well, considering that only 2 in 10 Catholics actually go to Mass, I would argue that the vast majority of practicing Catholics actually believe what the Church teaches.

Non-practicing Catholics (who are basically non-Catholics who happen to have Catholic parents) shouldn’t really count. It’s like including “atheist Jews” when polling what Jewish people believe about God.

 

[Freddy]

The Church is not a democracy. So… Even if 99% of lay Catholics disagree with a teaching, it makes no difference.

Of course it does. It shows that a majority of Catholics disagree with their own church. And those Catholics, and the rest of those who support ssm are a huge majority. And the state is a democracy. So it then does make a difference.

 

[ImQuiet]

sexually, societally, with regards to childrens welfare, etc., etc.

I can’t speak to the sexual risks of such activities, but how is gay marriage that much of a societal risk or a risk to the welfare of children? I don’t exactly see countries in a state of unrest because they’ve legalized gay marriage. I’ve met some lovely parents who happened to be a gay couple.

But primarily, morally.

And yet you don’t see advocates for criminalizing, say, sex outside of marriage.
I agree that it’s morally wrong, but considering the host of abuses the gay community has had to deal with, I’d say recognizing their unions offers them benefits that other civilly married couples enjoy is a good way of preventing systemic abuses against gays.
Heck, I’d argue that banning gay marriage would just create some serious problems for children in gay families, but that’s not something I can really speak to with much authority.

 

[sealabeag]

You know I meant it makes no difference to the Church’s teaching. They’re a huge majority? Ok fine, so? The Church moves forward, unchanging.

 

[Polak]

It seems the person you need to vote for must, in addition to promising to make ssm illegal, will promise to promote safe sex as well. And promise to reduce access to contraception into the bargain. And get the teaching of creationsim into schools.

Where on earth are you going to find this guy?

Your main argument is ‘haha good luck finding people who believe what you believe’. That isn’t much of an argument, at least not to a Catholic, just like a majority believing that gay marriage is okay isn’t going to convince Catholics that it is. Of course it might help pass laws in their favour, but it won’t make it right.

 

[phil19034]

sealabeag:

The Church is not a democracy. So… Even if 99% of lay Catholics disagree with a teaching, it makes no difference.

Of course it does. It shows that a majority of Catholics disagree with their own church. And those Catholics, and the rest of those who support ssm are a huge majority. And the state is a democracy. So it then does make a difference.

No it doesn’t. It’s a misnomer. Those polls are essentially (from a statistical point of view) including non-Catholics who simple have Catholic parents.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

When you only have 3 in 10 of all Catholics agreeing with you, it kinda undermines your argument that this a Catholic position. It’s the position of your church. Not the laity.

Well, considering that only 2 in 10 Catholics actually go to Mass, I would argue that the vast majority of practicing Catholics actually believe what the Church teaches.

Non-practicing Catholics (who are basically non-Catholics who happen to have Catholic parents) shouldn’t really count. It’s like including “atheist Jews” when polling what Jewish people believe about God.

So lets use Catholics who go to mass a couple of times a month. From the same link:

‘About four-in-ten of those who attend religious services at least once a week (39%) favor same-sex marriage, compared with 66% who attend once or twice a month’

Seems the percentage just went up.

 

[Freddy]

You know I meant it makes no difference to the Church’s teaching. They’re a huge majority? Ok fine, so? The Church moves forward, unchanging.

No argument there.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

It seems the person you need to vote for must, in addition to promising to make ssm illegal, will promise to promote safe sex as well. And promise to reduce access to contraception into the bargain. And get the teaching of creationsim into schools.

Where on earth are you going to find this guy?

Your main argument is ‘haha good luck finding people who believe what you believe’. That isn’t much of an argument, at least not to a Catholic, just like a majority believing that gay marriage is okay isn’t going to convince Catholics that it is. Of course it might help pass laws in their favour, but it won’t make it right.

And I have no problem in you believing that. None whatsoever. Just don’t think that that gives you the right to dictate to me how I should treat marriage.

 

[Polak]

Well I am not dictating how you should treat marriage. Do any of my posts make it seem that I am?

 

[JimG]

The institution of marriage came into existence precisely because the human race is composed of men and women.

 

[phil19034]

So lets use Catholics who go to mass a couple of times a month. From the same link:

‘About four-in-ten of those who attend religious services at least once a week (39%) favor same-sex marriage, compared with 66% who attend once or twice a month’

Seems the percentage just went up.

Most Catholics who only go to mass a couple of times a month are in mortal sin (unless they are going to confession each time they miss Sunday mass, or unless have an excused absence for mass).

Missing Mass on Sundays & Holy Days of Obligation is a mortal sin, unless they have a valid excuse to miss Mass.

The number that counts are the Catholics who attend every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation.

 

[Freddy]

Well I am not dictating how you should treat marriage. Do any of my posts make it seem that I am?

You want to restrict marriage to comply with the teachings of the Catholic church. Am I alllowed to do what a gay couple cannot do? Can I treat my marriage as one that concerns just me and my wife with no thought of children? Am I restricted as regards sexual acts?

Are you saying my wife and I can do these things but two women can’t? You are dictating what marriage must be. Am I excluded for some reason?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

So lets use Catholics who go to mass a couple of times a month. From the same link:

‘About four-in-ten of those who attend religious services at least once a week (39%) favor same-sex marriage, compared with 66% who attend once or twice a month’

Seems the percentage just went up.

Most Catholics who only go to mass a couple of times a month are in mortal sin (unless they are going to confession each time they miss Sunday mass, or unless have an excused absence for mass).

Missing Mass on Sundays & Holy Days of Obligation is a mortal sin, unless they have a valid excuse to miss Mass.

The number that counts are the Catholics who attend every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation.

Then I’d say that the nearly 4 in 10 who go once a week are also in mortal sin for supporting ssm. Should we skip those as well?