Should the state marry gay lovers?

[The_Smiter]

If you’re surprised Bennie believes that, you haven’t read enough of his posts. He’s convinced gays will single-handedly destroy civilization as we know it.

When I was young, I was conservative myself and felt homosexuality was a sin, etc. As I got older and wiser and my views changed on the matter, I began to see people differently. I think one of the most compelling arguments for same-sex marriage is that there are so many faithful and loving gay and lesbian couples out there. That alone stands against any argument such as “If you’re gay, you are psychologically diseased.” It disturbs me to even write that.

You admit that it was your vies that changed, not those of God.

No one contests that gay and lesbian believers can be faithful and reverent and penitent. But if anyone is in a state of sin or constantly unrepentant, that is dangerous, eternally speaking. The Church teaches (as I have stated in a previous post) that we are called to three vocations in life - religious life, married life. or single life (whether we are straight or gay). The fact is that any sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage in a sin. The fact that a state may provide a legal union for same sex couples does not invalidate the concept that it is morally wrong. You may differ on whether or not you believe that, but you cannot change what the Church (or any religious institution of merit) teaches.

 

[The_Smiter]

Actually, this works against your argument! Thanks!

Sure it does.

 

[thewalrus]

If this is your reasoning then anything goes.

No, just the Christian stuff.

 

[The_Smiter]

These “judicial activists” interpret the “equality under the law” clauses and “interpret” it to included ALL PEOPLE…not just “most of them”.

Whether or not you bring up a topic that is supposed to be secular by your definition - you cannot expect to bring it up on a CATHOLIC ANSWERS forum and expect that Catholic thought, dogma, abd doctrine will not be used in the discussion of such.

If you want a completely secular discussion, that would be for another site.

 

[The_Smiter]

Actually, this works against your argument! Thanks!

Additionally - are you suggesting that somehow there should be faith that some fruit (shildren) would be issued from a same-sex union?

 

[thewalrus]

You admit that it was your vies that changed, not those of God.

No one contests that gay and lesbian believers can be faithful and reverent and penitent. But if anyone is in a state of sin or constantly unrepentant, that is dangerous, eternally speaking. The Church teaches (as I have stated in a previous post) that we are called to three vocations in life - religious life, married life. or single life (whether we are straight or gay). The fact is that any sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage in a sin. The fact that a state may provide a legal union for same sex couples does not invalidate the concept that it is morally wrong. You may differ on whether or not you believe that, but you cannot change what the Church (or any religious institution of merit) teaches.

Right, your presupposition that it’s a “sin” is precisely what I’m arguing against. Homosexuality is not a sin. I never said God’s views changed. Humans have always struggled in rebellion against God. Denying marriage to homosexuals has been an ongoing sign of that rebellion.

 

[thewalrus]

Additionally - are you suggesting that somehow there should be faith that some fruit (shildren) would be issued from a same-sex union?

No, that’s what adoption is for. I was referring to when you said “Faith is what we should have our trust in - not the conventions of man and his understanding of biology and other aspects of nature.” Your conventions and enslavement to biology and nature (over theology) is precisely what you should not put your trust in. Put your trust in God.

 

[The_Smiter]

Actually they do not have all the same rights. While I will not call it marriage, gays can be prevented by family members from having a loved one visit in the hospital. They constantly have their wills contested by said family members. And they are viewed at as sinners no matter who they share living expenses with(ie, they can’t cohabitate with a woman and if they are out they can’t live with a man). Does it really seem fair to make these people find expensive solo living arangements? These three things need to change. They shouldn’t live with a woman but men should feel free to share lving exenses with each other. Wills should go uncontested by law and if someone requests that another be by their bedside in the hospital the family should have to abide by that request.

Respectfully - gj - your arguments are very 1980s. I live in an area where many gay and lesbian couples also live and the discussions that I have with my neighbors and friends (many of whom are doctors and lawyers) is that they have been completely able to order their legal and medical affairs in such a way that all of their rights are protected. As I have stated in another post - my wife and I have Advance Directives in place because the marriage certificate (or next of kin relation) just is not enough in today’s litigious world to trump a solidly crafted legal document.

Respectfully - your arguments are cunards that simply do not apply with the current state and tenor of legal understanding in today’s America (which is I am assuming what mostof us are referencing).

 

[Bennie_P]

If you’re surprised Bennie believes that, you haven’t read enough of his posts. He’s convinced gays will single-handedly destroy civilization as we know it.

When I was young, I was conservative myself and felt homosexuality was a sin, etc. As I got older and wiser and my views changed on the matter, I began to see people differently. I think one of the most compelling arguments for same-sex marriage is that there are so many faithful and loving gay and lesbian couples out there. That alone stands against any argument such as “If you’re gay, you are psychologically diseased.” It disturbs me to even write that.

When I was young I was a liberal-politcal activist, president of the peace and social justice group at the university I attended. Our group helped the GLB group get organize by giving them a role within our group and we helped them recruit an academic advisor for their own group. I do not know if all those that embrace the homosexual lifestyle are psychologically diseased, but by experience I have seen the mental angst many of them impose upon themselves by their irrational behavoir, not to mention the ones I’ve seen go to their early graves.

May God, give you many more years to truly become wise my friend.

By the way Paul is not Dead and he isn’t the Walrus and it is 2009 and not 1968. PAX.

 

[The_Smiter]

If this is your reasoning then anything goes.

I admit - walrus - that this is my conclusion regarding your position as well.

What would your position be on polygamous unions (and before you respond, you might consider that my position is not what you think it might be)?

 

[LeroyCRHP]

No.

This question came up in a different thread on the “Social Justice” Forum. I think it worth its own thread if nobody minds…

"The point is legal marriage, here…upon which religious points of view don’t have bearing. No one’s pushing for the catholic church to hold gay marriages…so where are the reasons that gays shouldn’t be able to marry in the eyes of the state? Anyone?"

And this was my answer:

I’ll grant to lleave the Church out of it for the sake of argument (though you really cannot for I would argue that one can only fully separate the Church from the State by holding to no belief in God and His creation.) Thus we acknowledge the State as having her own authority to establish and regulate juridical entities, such as marriage, which she ought to and does.

So homosexual marriage would then be held to be a ‘juridical’ or legal entity with its own rights, norms and privileges in society. That is fine to a certain point for we do need to distinguish carefully between such possible legal entities. Let me start with just a few (the list could be endless and all signs seem to show that it will be) such as marriage between a single man and a single woman as verses marriage between a man and several women or between two women, or between a woman and a dog (don’t laugh) or between a man and a boy, etc… Thus we seem to have a possible chaos only revealing the failure of the state to adequately protect and insure the temporal life and happiness of her constituents (and I mean here particularly children who are either the natural product of such unions or the ‘artificial’ product of gay marriage.)

Fr. Mike

 

[goofyjim]

Respectfully - gj - your arguments are very 1980s. I live in an area where many gay and lesbian couples also live and the discussions that I have with my neighbors and friends (many of whom are doctors and lawyers) is that they have been completely able to order their legal and medical affairs in such a way that all of their rights are protected. As I have stated in another post - my wife and I have Advance Directives in place because the marriage certificate (or next of kin relation) just is not enough in today’s litigious world to trump a solidly crafted legal document.

Respectfully - your arguments are cunards that simply do not apply with the current state and tenor of legal understanding in today’s America (which is I am assuming what mostof us are referencing).

Hey I am not proposing marriage rights, but when all else is trampled upon, something must be done. If only they would start recognizing Advanced Directives as a legally binding document, which they have not done to date.

 

[thewalrus]

I admit - walrus - that this is my conclusion regarding your position as well.

What would your position be on polygamous unions (and before you respond, you might consider that my position is not what you think it might be)?

I won’t presume your position unless you tell me. Polygamous unions are different than homosexual unions because they deal with more than two people. It is not a valid analogy. The only difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is that in the latter, they are of the same sex. I think polygamous unions are problematic on several levels.

 

[The_Smiter]

Right, your presupposition that it’s a “sin” is precisely what I’m arguing against. Homosexuality is not a sin. I never said God’s views changed. Humans have always struggled in rebellion against God. Denying marriage to homosexuals has been an ongoing sign of that rebellion.

How can you argue that God approves of homosexual activity and marriage?

And if you do, then you understand that any discussion on this forum is moot because there is never going to be any agreement between you and what The Church teaches.

If that is the case - fine. Then I would add that your OP is simply another red herring because it was never intended to elicit an understanding of Church teaching. It is evident that you DO understand Church teaching - and you believe that it is wrong. That being the case, you may consider yourself a Christian (and I would not dispute you on that) but you would be in the same situation a s a person who divorced and remarried without an annulment - living in a constant state of adultery. If you would not accept this, then it woudl be hard to say that you would be a member of the Catholic Church (or any ostensibly nomitive Christial sect) and that you have decided to create your own understanding of what Christianity is that is a defferent understanding for the last 2000 years.

That’s OK. I have no problem with that. But at least be honest about what you are presenting and representing. It is truily disingenuous to come on here and state that everyone’s understanding of Christ’s, the OT and NT, and ECF, and Apostolic Tradition anbd teaching has given us is false. If that is the discussion, then it needs its own forum because it is way off topic for this one.

 

[thewalrus]

When I was young I was a liberal-politcal activist, president of the peace and social justice group at the university I attended. Our group helped the GLB group get organize by giving them a role within our group and we helped them recruit an academic advisor for their own group. I do not know if all those that embrace the homosexual lifestyle are psychologically diseased, but by experience I have seen the mental angst many of them impose upon themselves by their irrational behavoir, not to mention the ones I’ve seen go to their early graves.

May God, give you many more years to truly become wise my friend.

By the way Paul is not Dead and he isn’t the Walrus and it is 2009 and not 1968. PAX.

In my experience, those who have been somewhat obsessed with fear of homosexuals taking over society have demonstrated signs of psychological disease and irrational behavior.

May God give you a couple more years to become a bit wiser and significantly less fearful.

 

[The_Smiter]

Hey I am not proposing marriage rights, but when all else is trampled upon, something must be done. If only they would start recognizing Advanced Directives as a legally binding document, which they have not done to date.

I do agree with you, gj, wholeheartedly.

I a a BIG proponent of civil unions - in all of their many forms. Civil union is a concept that is vbery misunderstood and I think should be discovered and disclosed by the homosexual rights community FIRST before we go into the realm of discussing the idea of drastically changing what the term “marriage” means.

I am ALL for engaging in a discussion regarding civil unions because they are a way to protect EVERYONE’S rights.

I hope that is something we can build a dialog on, gj!

P.S. - I remember when we PM for a bit a while ago and found it very enlightning and am glad to see that you are on this forum!

 

[The_Smiter]

I won’t presume your position unless you tell me. Polygamous unions are different than homosexual unions because they deal with more than two people. It is not a valid analogy. The only difference between a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple is that in the latter, they are of the same sex. I think polygamous unions are problematic on several levels.

Come on - let’sbe serious. How can your statement hold water regarding what you think marriage is when your very thesis is the fact that you are redefininf marriage?

 

[The_Smiter]

In my experience, those who have been somewhat obsessed with fear of homosexuals taking over society have demonstrated signs of psychological disease and irrational behavior.

May God give you a couple more years to become a bit wiser and significantly less fearful.

Foul! There is nothing in his post that states or implies a fear of homosexuals taking over society. And while your answer does not state the HE actually said it - it can be inferred. Truth be told we may have already had a gay man as president. Society and the country did not fall.

Please do not pass the red herring.

This is an ad hominem attack and does not advance the discussion.

 

[thewalrus]

How can you argue that God approves of homosexual activity and marriage?

And if you do, then you understand that any discussion on this forum is moot because there is never going to be any agreement between you and what The Church teaches.

If that is the case - fine. Then I would add that your OP is simply another red herring because it was never intended to elicit an understanding of Church teaching. It is evident that you DO understand Church teaching - and you believe that it is wrong. That being the case, you may consider yourself a Christian (and I would not dispute you on that) but you would be in the same situation a s a person who divorced and remarried without an annulment - living in a constant state of adultery. If you would not accept this, then it woudl be hard to say that you would be a member of the Catholic Church (or any ostensibly nomitive Christial sect) and that you have decided to create your own understanding of what Christianity is that is a defferent understanding for the last 2000 years.

That’s OK. I have no problem with that. But at least be honest about what you are presenting and representing. It is truily disingenuous to come on here and state that everyone’s understanding of Christ’s, the OT and NT, and ECF, and Apostolic Tradition anbd teaching has given us is false. If that is the discussion, then it needs its own forum because it is way off topic for this one.

Smiter, I have stated a few times where I’m coming from, but it might have been in a different thread. I am not a Catholic. I’m not opposed to Catholicism though. I suppose that I didn’t realize Catholics were opposed to discussing and thinking through things. It seems you guys are ok with letting someone else think for you. I understand the Catholic tradition and respect it. However, I also think there is room in the Catholic tradition for healthy critique. If there’s not, it’s a cult, pure and simple.

By the way, what is “OP”? I certainly do hold many views that are contrary to Catholic tradition and am perfectly willing to acknowledge that. I just thought you guys would enjoy conversations/debates. I mean, what would this forum be like if everyone was like “hey man, you can’t question this, the Church says so.” Is that boring or what?

By the way, I am divorced and will likely remarry some day. Pretty excited about it, actually.

 

[thewalrus]

Come on - let’sbe serious. How can your statement hold water regarding what you think marriage is when your very thesis is the fact that you are redefininf marriage?

I wasn’t speaking of marriage, per se, but rather numbers within it. I mean, the same goes for any relationship. I don’t think a guy should have 6 girlfriends either.