Should Catholic leaders make gay marriage illegal?

[sealabeag]

No, you’re missing the point. Marriage is something. It is not a concept, an idea, a construct. It is the reality of a union of a man and woman in a lifelong bond. A rock is a rock. Words apply to specific things. A homosexual union is something, but it is not marriage. Governments don’t define words, or marriage.

 

[TMC]

No, you’re missing the point. Marriage is something. It is not a concept, an idea, a construct. It is the reality of a union of a man and woman in a lifelong bond. A rock is a rock. Words apply to specific things. A homosexual union is something, but it is not marriage. Governments don’t define words, or marriage.

This is a purely semantic argument. You are saying you are unhappy because a word is being used today to encompass more than it used to. But the meanings of words shift all the time, for various reasons.

So are you saying you would be perfectly happy with gay marriage if it were called something else? Would you ask that only the Church can use the word “marriage” and that all civil marriages be called something else?

 

[sealabeag]

ask that only the Church can use the word “marriage” and that all civil marriages be called something else?

You’re missing me entirely. Are you Catholic?

 

[TMC]

You’re missing me entirely. Are you Catholic?

Yes.

How am I missing you? You said that your issue was that the Government does not get to say what is or is not a “marriage.” That leads to three pretty straightforward questions. First, who does get to say what is called a marriage? Second, are you saying you are fine with people entering into marriage-like unions, as long as they are not called marriage? (If not, what are you saying)? And ,Third, what do you call those un-Church sanctioned unions?

 

[sealabeag]

are you saying you are fine with people entering into marriage-like unions, as long as they are not called marriage? (If not, what are you saying)? And ,Third, what do you call those un-Church sanctioned unions?

1. God.
2. Legally, yes. Morally, no.
3. Homosexual unions or somesuch, don’t really care so long as it’s not marriage or something else which it’s not.

 

[TMC]

• God.
• Yes.
• Homosexual unions or somesuch, don’t really care so long as it’s not marriage or something else which it’s not.

OK. I am not so sure I agree with your #1. I would be OK with 2 and 3, if everyone got the same treatment - meaning that the government called all civil marriages “civil unions” or something like that, and only marriages in the Church were called “marriages.” I don’t know how that would be enforced (or why anyone would care).

 

[JimG]

Well, we could call such unions “civilly sanctioned legal relationships” or even just “civil unions,” or “sanctioned roommates,” but they are certainly not marriage.

The notion of marriage is derived from the sexual complementarity of man and woman. It is the complementarity that makes marriage possible, makes marital relations possible, makes procreation possible. Man and woman can create children, who have a right to know and be raised by their mother and father.

There is nothing whatever marital about same sex unions. They can never be marriage.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I think you’re experiencing some mild frustration from some posters who consider it to be a naive question. I’d take that on board and accept it as an indication that you need to get up to speed with how governments work.

You’re not a good psychiatrist. I’m not experiencing any ‘mild frustration’ and my question was valid because the president does have a say on whether laws become laws or they don’t, hence why they are the president, otherwise, as I said, what would be their purpose?

As regards the current incumbent, I have no idea.

 

[Freddy]

neophyte:

I disagree that it doesn’t impact people outside of the US

How does it really impact anyone not desiring to become involved in the described relationship? Is your marriage “less” because Bill and Steve can go to the courthouse and get a marriage license? I know that mine isn’t. It has absolutely no effect on me whatsoever. What effect has it had on you?

This is the third or fourth time this question has been asked. Be nice to get an answer from someone.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

whatistrue:

How does it really impact anyone not desiring to become involved in the described relationship? Is your marriage “less” because Bill and Steve can go to the courthouse and get a marriage license? I know that mine isn’t. It has absolutely no effect on me whatsoever. What effect has it had on you?

This is the third or fourth time this question has been asked. Be nice to get an answer from someone.

Well, there’s the issue of forcing other people to recognize this as a marriage, as in the case of bakers being asked to make wedding cakes celebrating these unions.

 

[sealabeag]

The point is not about whether two gay people entering into a union affects me (although there are plenty arguments for how legalising gay “marriage” does negatively affect society as a whole), the point is the word “marriage”, and if you can understand that you can understand the Catholic problem here. If you don’t get it I could, or someone more intelligent than me, could try to explain it.

 

[Nepperhan]

Well, there’s the issue of forcing other people to recognize this as a marriage, as in the case of bakers being asked to make wedding cakes celebrating these unions.

I think that was a very narrow exception as to personal, artistic expression.

 

[Nepperhan]

If you don’t get it I could, or someone more intelligent than me, could try to explain it.

Well, what if a person disagrees with you? That would not make the person not a Catholic nor would it mean the person did not get it.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

whatistrue:

How does it really impact anyone not desiring to become involved in the described relationship? Is your marriage “less” because Bill and Steve can go to the courthouse and get a marriage license? I know that mine isn’t. It has absolutely no effect on me whatsoever. What effect has it had on you?

This is the third or fourth time this question has been asked. Be nice to get an answer from someone.

Well, there’s the issue of forcing other people to recognize this as a marriage, as in the case of bakers being asked to make wedding cakes celebrating these unions.

Are you telling me that if we called it something else then said baker would be happy writing ‘A lifetime of happiness to Dave and Pete’ in icing? Are you honestly suggesting the baker is arguing over semantics?

 

[Freddy]

The point is not about whether two gay people entering into a union affects me (although there are plenty arguments for how legalising gay “marriage” does negatively affect society as a whole)…

But that’s the point which has been brought up. If it has no effect on people then there’s no problem. So I want to know what those detrimental effects are.

Someone said it effects all marriages. But it hasn’t effected mine whatsoever, so that statement was obviously wrong. I’m waiting for someone to tell me how it’s effected theirs.

 

[sealabeag]

Ok that’s a valid question I just wanted to point out that the primary issue as a Catholic is that gay “marriage” does not exist and that to say that it does would be to he complicit in a lie, amongst other things. Simply saying “it doesn’t affect me so what’s the problem?” is not an acceptable stance for a logical Catholic.

The negative effects are another issue which I’m sure someone can answer. But just so we’re clear that they’re not the main issue for Catholics.

 

[Freddy]

Ok that’s a valid question I just wanted to point out that the primary issue as a Catholic is that gay “marriage” does not exist and that to say that it does would be to he complicit in a lie, amongst other things. Simply saying “it doesn’t affect me so what’s the problem?” is not an acceptable stance for a logical Catholic.

The negative effects are another issue which I’m sure someone can answer. But just so we’re clear that they’re not the main issue for Catholics.

I appreciate your point. But the world doesn’t revolve around a Catholic understanding of society. So if a Catholic objects to something based on her beliefs then the question that must be asked is: ‘Apart from your beliefs, why is this objectionable?’

All we’ve had so far is people saying ‘marriage must mean this’. And arguing that position from a religious viewpoint. Without any attempt to put forward any concrete reasons. I think it’s time someone did.

 

[neophyte]

This is the third or fourth time this question has been asked. Be nice to get an answer from someone.

Asked and answered.

 

[sealabeag]

For a Christian “Why is this objectionable apart from your beliefs?” is a kind of silly question. There are natural evils connected with it, yes, but the moral evils are our primary concern. Religious reasons are concrete reasons, you just don’t agree with them. You shouldn’t be surprised at Catholics’ worldview being religious. You seem to want Catholics to set aside Catholicism and argue on a materialistic level. Why would they?

 

[signit]

Asked and answered.

So apparently the answer is that it forces you to be “complicit in a lie.”

It doesn’t.

Most gays respect the Catholic belief that God intended marriage as between a man and a woman.

If other people don’t agree with that belief I don’t see how that makes you complicit in it.