Should Catholic leaders make gay marriage illegal?

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You are simply describing ssm. Now you need to tell us how it affects your marriage. Did you wake up the morning after it was made legal and realised your marriage was different in some way? I didn’t. My marriage is exactly the same. As far as I know, nobody I know has been negatively affected by it either.

What happened to your marriage that didn’t happen to mine?

SSM does not affect an individual couple’s marriage. Like no-fault divorce, it negatively impacts people’s understanding of what marriage truly is.

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.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

‘Based on polling in 2019, a majority of Americans (61%) support same-sex marriage, while 31% oppose it.’ Changing Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage | Pew Research Center

That 61% is the same percentage as Catholics who support it. And more younger people support it than older people so those figures are only going to rise.

Polling means little. It is the vote that counts.

Then find someone who will act to make it illegal and go vote for them. Let me know how you get on.

 

[Freddy]

Ok, but we’re talking from two different perspectives. From my perspective those races already could marry, according to marriage’s essential nature.

Exactly the point I made. From your perspective it’s ok to redefine it in one circumstance but not the other. But at least we have agreed that they can change the definition.

Freddy:

It certainly can redefine marriage. The Supreme Court did in 1967 to allow mixed races to marry. Maybe you only think it’s a problem if you don’t agree with it.

Race and color are innate. Homosexual acts are not unless your claim is these acts are beyond self control and animal instinctive.

Consensual sex between two people, whatever their ‘race’ or gender is entirely up to those two people. I’m afraid you have no say in the matter. And now you have no say whether they want to get married as well.

Let me know when you find someone to vote for that might help you change the situation.

 

[sealabeag]

Exactly the point I made. From your perspective it’s ok to redefine it in one circumstance but not the other. But at least we have agreed that they can change the definition.

Um, no? When did I say it was ok to redefine it in any circumstance?

 

[whatistrue]

Does a government have the power to redefine what the word “love” means?

Well, it does have the power to define what “chocolate” means. Or “Champagne”. Marriage as a social institution existed before the Church did, even before the events described in the latter part of Genesis and in Exodus (hence before the Ten Commandments, and the burning bush, and Mosaic Law), and I am not aware of any society with a functional government where that government did not have some legal institution that can be translated into English as “marriage”, and the variations on how that institution is or was defined are numerous. So the main point is that, while the Church has a very precise definition of marriage, it does not have exclusive rights to the word, and governments can and do define and regulate the state of life commonly known as marriage within their sphere of authority, and can and have defined it differently than the Church.

 

[buffalo]

Consensual sex between two people, whatever their ‘race’ or gender is entirely up to those two people. I’m afraid you have no say in the matter.

In a time when we the people did not pay for their healthcare and other benefits I would agree. Now We the people do and risky behaviors are more costly. I have an interest in lowering those costs.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Exactly the point I made. From your perspective it’s ok to redefine it in one circumstance but not the other. But at least we have agreed that they can change the definition.

Um, no? When did I say it was ok to redefine it in any circumstance?

The Supreme Court redefined it to allow ‘mixed races’ to marry. Prior to that, marriage was legally defined as being between two people of the same race. And you said that you were quite happy with that change as from your perspective they should have been able to anyway.

So we agree at that point that they can change the legal definition of the term. But when it’s a change you don’t like, you object to them being able to do so.

 

[buffalo]

it does not have exclusive rights to the word, and governments

Who are those governments? Who gives them their power? And that was the issue, the attempt to redefine marriage to be whatever flavor of the month is.

 

[sealabeag]

No, that’s not what I said. I said that was an example of a government acting outside it’s bounds. They had no right to do so in my eyes.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Consensual sex between two people, whatever their ‘race’ or gender is entirely up to those two people. I’m afraid you have no say in the matter.

In a time when we the people did not pay for their healthcare and other benefits I would agree. Now We the people do and risky behaviors are more costly. I have an interest in lowering those costs.

Maybe you can tell us what risky behaviour two women get up to in a commited marriage?

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?

 

[phil19034]

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.

This is why arranged marriages were (and still are) theologically legal. Because marriage is not primarily about two people loving each other. It’s about two families merging to create life. Now, it’s much better when the two love each other, but love is secondary to children.

If a pre-Cana couple tells the priest that they have no intention on ever having kids because they don’t want them, the priest will not marry the couple.

If two people love each other, then they love each other outside of marriage. You don’t need marriage to love each other.

What natural marriage provides a stable home and permanent structure for the creation & rearing of children.

Sacramental marriage raises natural marriage by allowing the two to become one flesh with God’s Grace.

NOW: in my opinion what SSM, “don’t want children marriage,” “divorced & remarried without annulment marriage,” etc. all do is really attempt to create a 3rd kind of marriage: civil marriage

So instead of just the two, we get:

• civil marriage << legal benefits of marriage but lacking one or more natural characteristics
• natural marriage << traditional marriage, without sacramental grace
• sacramental marriage << full realization of marriage

NOTE: I’m being kind, because I’m creating a third kind of marriage instead of simply saying that it’s not a marriage.

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)

 

[phil19034]

(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 marriage (aka a natural marriage) has never been equal to Sacramental Marriage, but 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 marriage today complain 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?

 

[Freddy]

No, that’s not what I said. I said that was an example of a government acting outside it’s bounds. They had no right to do so in my eyes.

No right to declare that marriage could be between a black person and a white one?

 

[po18guy]

Catholic leaders should focus on properly forming their conscience according with their faith, and then voting that conscience.

That is all that is needed.

 

[ImQuiet]

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?

 

[sealabeag]

The can if they want, to correct a previously errant law that they had no right to enact in the first place. It’s really only clarifying a human right that already existed. They redefined nothing in my eyes, because they have no ability to do so, and if they try to, they act outside their bounds.

 

[sealabeag]

Really? Are you Catholic out of interest?

 

[phil19034]

The Supreme Court redefined it to allow ‘mixed races’ to marry. Prior to that, marriage was legally defined as being between two people of the same race.

No, that was civil. The Church & other places around the world never outlawed mixed races to marry. The Catholic Church was marrying many European Spaniards & Portuguese to Native Americans in Latin America back in the 1500s. Before that, you did have some Europeans and Asians marry.

But it really wasn’t until the 1500s (in the Americas) that you really started to have a mixture of the different races living together. Before then, few Europeans ventured outside of Europe, few Africans ventured outside of Africa, few Asians ventured outside of Asia.

 

[ImQuiet]

Really? Are you Catholic out of interest?

Yes, I am.

 

[sealabeag]

Ok, I didn’t mean that patronisingly or anything, just wanted to be clear as it affects the conversation. Non-Catholics post here too. Same sex “marriage” is risky behaviour for a host of reasons, sexually, societally, with regards to childrens welfare, etc., etc.
But primarily, morally.