Should Catholic leaders make gay marriage illegal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Polak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I do, two. Ten and (almost) twelve, since that is the next question. Well, technically three…but she’s with God.

But, again. Do I look at them according to our modern standards and laws that they would be too young? Or according to God. Do I follow what I believe or what God teaches? I would say that’s too young myself. But, despite what I feel, who do I follow? Who is a better man? Me or Jesus? Who decided to be born to someone under our currently understood age of consent?

Jesus is the truth, the way, and the life. So, therefore, what I think must be subordinate to Him.
 
AHapka said:
I do, two. Ten and (almost) twelve, since that is the next question. Well, technically three…but she’s with God.

But, again. Do I look at them according to our modern standards and laws that they would be too young? Or according to God. Do I follow what I believe or what God teaches? I would say that’s too young myself. But, despite what I feel, who do I follow? Who is a better man? Me or Jesus? Who decided to be born to someone under our currently understood age of consent?
Click to expand...
Now your reply to rose certainly gave the impression that whatever age Mary was when she married, and you obviously considered her to be a child as you were directly comparing her to the age of consent for children, was acceptable. Again, in comparison to a child today giving consent.

But you now say that you consider that age to be too young to consent. So your first argument didn’t really represent what you thought, did it…

I’m sure the age of consent in the Vatican has changed but there’s this to consider:

‘Vatican City statutory rape law is violated when an individual has consensual sexual contact with a person under age 18. The age of consent is 14 for girls and 16 for boys when the couple is married’. Vatican City Age of Consent & Statutory Rape Laws

Maybe you think it’s ok as well if the 14 year old girl is married. It’s hard to tell.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
I have to admit I’m not offended by most of what Catholics believe. If they want to believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman then fine. But I am offended if they want their beliefs to apply to me or to society in general. Just like I don’t mind people denying evolution or claiming the earth is flat but will do anything to stop that being taught in schools.
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts about two posts I sent to you earlier?
But here is my MAJOR issue with SSM, “don’t want children marriage,” “divorced and remarried without annulment,” etc:
  • they are not happy being just a civil marriage. They want to redefine natural marriage & for many of them they want to be equal to sacramental marriage.
Look how many “divorced and remarried without annulment” people insist on receiving communion. They want the Church to recognize their marriage as equal to sacramental marriage, but it’s not.

SSM officially does what was basically already here: officially creates a third kind of marriage - civil marriage.

But the “redefinition” of marriage is where people are not happy with the hierarchy of the traditional two types of marriage (now three types)

– Civil Marriage
– Natural Marriage
– Sacramental Marriage

(cont)

(cont)
If the supporters of SSM, “don’t want children marriage,” “divorced and remarried without annulment marriage,” etc. were content with being a civil marriage, this would be less of an issue. But the activist among them are not. They insist religions change their beliefs, etc.

Two non-baptized people getting married (aka a natural marriage) has never been equal to Sacramental Marriage, but I’ve never heard of a Jewish couple (an example of a natural marriage) complaining that their marriage wasn’t equal to Sacramental Marriage. So why do couples in civil marriages today complain (whether same sex or opposite sex) that their civil marriage isn’t equal to Natural Marriage and/or Sacramental Marriage? Why can’t they accept their win and move on? Why must their activists strive to eliminate Natural & Sacramental Marriage?
Click to expand...
I am interested in your thoughts
 
Last edited:
People had much less freedom to choose whom they married. It is possible people matured quicker back then, but I definitely would not trust a 13 or even 18 year old to get married and do so with proper knowledge and maturity
 
To be honest, it does seem contradictory and you are correct.

I have my opinions that it should be higher. But, as Catholics, we are required to follow God and Church law. If the Church says 14 then my opinion is irrelevant. Is it a struggle? Of course!

Though, the next question we can ask is how often this is true. Modern days, yes. So maybe God doesn’t call as many?

Either way, despite my feelings, I must follow God. In some ways, it’s easy, in these ways, it’s harder. In the final answer to your question, what I consider is ultimately irrelevant. What the Pope and Canon law considers is the final word on the matter.
 
phil19034 said:
Why must their activists strive to eliminate Natural & Sacramental Marriage?
Click to expand...
They don’t. I personally couldn’t care less what you call a Catholic marriage. I don’t think anyone else does either. But if two guys or two girls get married, then I’m going to call that ‘a marriage’. And again, I don’t really care whether you consider to be a marriage or not. That really doesn’t interest me.
 
rosejmj said:
People had much less freedom to choose whom they married. It is possible people matured quicker back then, but I definitely would not trust a 13 or even 18 year old to get married and do so with proper knowledge and maturity
Click to expand...
Back in the old days, the girl’s parents had (name removed by moderator)ut on who their daughter married. Most were very conscience to make sure their daughter married a man from a good family, one would take care of her, etc.

So her lack of life experience was less of an issue because her parents either (a) picked her spouse or (b) had veto power.

Not to mention back then, the boy/man had to get the girl’s parent’s permission BEFORE he could start to court their daughter. Today, boys “court” the daughter first, sometimes weeks, months, or even years before the her parents meet the boy or his family.
 
AHapka said:
To be honest, it does seem contradictory and you are correct.

I have my opinions that it should be higher. But, as Catholics, we are required to follow God and Church law. If the Church says 14 then my opinion is irrelevant. Is it a struggle? Of course!

Though, the next question we can ask is how often this is true. Modern days, yes. So maybe God doesn’t call as many?

Either way, despite my feelings, I must follow God. In some ways, it’s easy, in these ways, it’s harder. In the final answer to your question, what I consider is ultimately irrelevant. What the Pope and Canon law considers is the final word on the matter.
Click to expand...
Then you will end up tying yourself in knots. Consider this:

‘Vatican City’s equal age of consent is being raised from 12 to 18 following the announcement of an overhaul of the Catholic Church’s criminal code by Pope Francis.’ Vatican City raises age of consent from 12 to 18 following scandals

That was in 2013. Now your two girls are two years apart. If the younger was 13 in 2012, the Vatican said it was Ok for her to get married and have sex. And then in 2014 when your elder was 17, she’d be too young.

Make any sense to you? That one day it’s fine for a twelve year old girl to have sex and then the following day it’s wrong for a 17 year old.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
40.png
phil19034:
Why must their activists strive to eliminate Natural & Sacramental Marriage?
Click to expand...
They don’t. I personally couldn’t care less what you call a Catholic marriage. I don’t think anyone else does either. But if two guys or two girls get married, then I’m going to call that ‘a marriage’. And again, I don’t really care whether you consider to be a marriage or not. That really doesn’t interest me.
Click to expand...
What about the activists and people like Hillary Clinton who say that religions must change their beliefs?

Why does Hollywood have to insert gay themes into many cartoons, targeting young children?

For example: the latest She-Ra season (season 5) winds up shows She-Ra making out with Catra.

When most religions feel that same sex behavior is immoral, why do people have to force it on young children?

Why can’t they let parents teach their kids and finally let the kids make up their own minds? Why must they insist on undermining what children are taught at home and in their places of worship?

I don’t have a issue when two men or two women deciding they love each other. What they do in the privacy of their own home is their business.

But when they insist on advertising what belief to children, that’s when I have an issue.

NOTE: it is not just same sex couples. I’ve know plenty of Catholics (my own aunt for example) who would publicly undermine the Church in front of kids.

If someone doesn’t like what the Church teaches, to each their own. But why must some advertise their discontent to children?

Teachers today are just as bad. Too many teachers tell their students today too much about their personal lives. My kids should not know their teacher’s spouse’s name. They shouldn’t know intimate details about their lives. I think it’s OK to know that their teacher is married or not, but they really don’t have to know anymore than that.
 
Last edited:
Just like it’s wrong one Friday to eat meat (which is a mortal sin that would send me to Hell) and another it’s not when the Bishops changed the requirement to only abstain from something.

Same concept. If the Pope says one thing is not good, and then changes his mind on the next day it makes sense to me.
 
Forgot to mention abortion and euthanasia.

Because I’m doing this from an American perspective that if we outlawed those things and censored media from indecency it would be a better but not necessarily perfect country.
[/quote]

But what’s your criteria? Why do you leave other immoral acts out? I’m certain that most Catholics would consider adultery or contraception to be worse that burlesque.
 
phil19034 said:
40.png
Freddy:
40.png
phil19034:
Why must their activists strive to eliminate Natural & Sacramental Marriage?
Click to expand...
They don’t. I personally couldn’t care less what you call a Catholic marriage. I don’t think anyone else does either. But if two guys or two girls get married, then I’m going to call that ‘a marriage’. And again, I don’t really care whether you consider to be a marriage or not. That really doesn’t interest me.
Click to expand...
What about the activists and people like Hillary Clinton who say that religions must change their beliefs?

Why does Hollywood have to insert gay themes into many cartoons, targeting young children?
Click to expand...
I’ve read what Clinton said. If you have and you think that’s what she meant then there’s not much I’ll be able to say that will change your kind. Have you read it? I’d hazard a guess and say no.

And I guess people in Hollywood want to corrupt your children. As opposed to reflecting aspects of society in their product.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
I’ve read what Clinton said. If you have and you think that’s what she meant then there’s not much I’ll be able to say that will change your kind. Have you read it? I’d hazard a guess and say no.
Click to expand...
Yes, I actually have. I even watched the video of her saying it and listened to the audio too.
 
phil19034 said:
40.png
Freddy:
I’ve read what Clinton said. If you have and you think that’s what she meant then there’s not much I’ll be able to say that will change your kind. Have you read it? I’d hazard a guess and say no.
Click to expand...
Yes, I actually have. I even watched the video of her saying it and listened to the audio too.
Click to expand...
Then I’m not going to be able to convince you that what she said wasn’t what you implied, am I…
 
Freddy said:
And I guess people in Hollywood want to corrupt your children. As opposed to reflecting aspects of society in their product.
Click to expand...
that’s true, because they do. A show rated TV G or TV Y-7 should not have material that some parents would find objectionable.

TV G and TV Y-7 (and younger) should be avoid anything that at least half (if not more) of the country don’t want to expose their 7 years too.
 
Freddy said:
40.png
phil19034:
40.png
Freddy:
I’ve read what Clinton said. If you have and you think that’s what she meant then there’s not much I’ll be able to say that will change your kind. Have you read it? I’d hazard a guess and say no.
Click to expand...
Yes, I actually have. I even watched the video of her saying it and listened to the audio too.
Click to expand...
Then I’m not going to be able to convince you that what she said wasn’t what you implied, am I…
Click to expand...
try it…

But honestly, does the context to this quote really matter? Is there any context where “deep seated … religious beliefs … have to be changed” is not an attack on religious freedom?


As a Catholic who voted for Obama twice, I found that line from her mouth to be VERY SCARY.

Esp as the federal govt was suing the Little Sisters of the Poor.
 
Last edited:
neophyte said:
Yes. It is an insistance that things be named and treated as what they are, rather than as what they are not. It is also a recognition that a society that treats things as if they are what they are not, is an unhealthy society.
Click to expand...
For the most part though what is meant is obvious and doesn’t require correction.
 
Last edited:
While I hope the parents of the time made good decisions as to whom their children would marry, it does not mean they were ready for marriage, regardless of how great the chosen man may have been. It is possible due to people growing up faster that they were at a better place than most teenagers today though. Even if parents were able to choose a suitable spouse for teens, I would think they are too immature these days for such a big life change
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top