Social Consequence of Gay Marriage

[ignatius777]

The problem is the deviation between Western society’s current view of marriage and the Church’s view. Current society believes that marriage is a “celebration of love” rather than an institution to provide and provide for future members of the society.

It is not that I think that SSM is not a problem: it’s that the problem within society is related to the loss of understanding of what marriage is about, and *this *problem is related to abc.

Catholics cannot explain the immorality of SSM to people who do not understand marriage to begin with.

We are fortunate that people do seem to have a subconscious knowledge that SSM is bad, but I fear that this subconscious knowledge will be wiped out in the upcoming generation by propaganda, etc.

I think that in the Catholic Church there is neither a proscription nor prohibition on prosecuting extra-marital or homosexual relationships at all. This is left to the prudential judgement of the society involved.

“Tolerance” in the Catholic sense is understanding that prosecution of an evil would cause more civil problems than allowing it to be. So, for example, not every lie uttered is illegal, because then *either *every time somone lied it would become a court case, which would be crazy; *or *people would lose respect for the law by continually breaking it. Therefore, lying is “tolerated,” in the Catholic sense.

---

It is not only this issue that is a problem, but there is the fact that law reflects society and also forms society. By legalizing SSM, society is saying that this type of behavior is acceptable and taking another step down the road that marriage without the idea of children is acceptable.

But look at the number of Catholics who do not understand the principle of not remarrying after divorce, so there is a problem.

You make a fantastic point that many see marriage simply as a matter of “love”. Committment and responsibility are downplayed as evidenced by the high divorce rate. One of the major arguments for gay “marriage” is people are allowed to marry who they “love”. To say onw should be allowed t omarry whomever they “love” opens marriage to all sorts of unhealthy configurations. Good post

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

There is no gain for society as a whole for the govt to sanction gay “marriage” but there certainly is for OMOW marriage. Gay “marriage” is strictly a self absorbed ploy to gain personal advantages for a select group. Thats not equal protection under the law.

So the consequence for this is no consequence? Do you think gay marriage will be of no effect?

 

[wes144]

Only the Creator and Designer of human beings has the right to say how we are to act, live, or anything else. Churches only “think to change times and laws.” Daniel 7:25
Man pretends to have authority in areas that are exclusively the realm and judgment of God.

Whose words shall stand, mine, or theirs. Jeremiah 44:28

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Daniel 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?

Romans 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;

 

[ignatius777]

So the consequence for this is no consequence? Do you think gay marriage will be of no effect?

gay “marriage” adds nothing to society as a whole.

 

[Ladygem]

Sure. But this can be done by regulating civil unions, right? The government could treat marriage as a contract, and you need to have two or more willing and sufficiently mature parties to enter into a contract.

Shouldn’t any further involvement in marriage risk stepping on religious toes?

This! I believe that the reason there is so much venom about this issue from both sides is that there are two definitions of “marriage” one is civil and the other is sacramental. In other countries, the civil ceremony and the sacramental ceremony are totally separate, A couple, if the wish can be sacramentally married, but not legally married. the pro traditional marriage crowd is speaking of sacramental marriage, and the pro homosexual “marriage” crowd is speaking about civil marriage. Sacramental marriage can only be between one man and one woman, and this should be protected, but civil marriage, at least in my opinion, is totally different, and is more like a contract. I see no reason why civil marriage cannot be extended to two men or two women. Now, ideally, in my opinion, the two processes should be separate, and civil marriage should be called something else, as this misunderstanding of the definition of marriage could conceivably become a religious liberty issue. Also, civil union rights vary by state, so in some cases, civil unions do not have all the same rights as married couples. This needs to be rectified and standardized across the country. This is just my personal opinion, and I know I lean more toward the left than many people on this site.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

What if 3 people want to marry? Should that be allowed? What if a man wants to marry his sister? Should that be allowed?

Its all about “Who do you love?” Well, according to the vice president it is.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

gay “marriage” adds nothing to society as a whole.

It cheapens and devalues traditional marriage.

 

[ignatius777]

It cheapens and devalues traditional marriage.

I cant disagree

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Because government is the institutional arm of the society, and society has an interest is regulating marriage.

Henry VIII was the first major figure to bring control of marriage under the control of the state. How did that fare for the Church?

Then, the French Revolution made marriage a secular institution, with marriages only recognized by the state.

How did that turn out for the Church?

 

[fix]

Its all about “Who do you love?” Well, according to the vice president it is.

Indeed. My point is that now we ask for proof as to why such absurd things are wrong or will have ill effects. Only in an upside down world would anyone require such “proof”.

 

[St_Francis]

Henry VIII was the first major figure to bring control of marriage under the control of the state. How did that fare for the Church?

Then, the French Revolution made marriage a secular institution, with marriages only recognized by the state.

How did that turn out for the Church?

Here again we have a problem with marriage which is actually embedded in a larger problem.

Was the problem for the Church the fact that Henry VIII brought control of marriage to the state, or was the Church’s problem that Henry VIII took over *all *the Church’s institutions and made Catholicism illegal?

Was the Church’s problem during the French Revolution that marriage was made a secular insitution, or that the revolutionaries were killing Catholics and destroying every vestige of Catholicism in France?

Almost every society has a regulation of child-producing relationships, which in general are known as marriage, and in a law-based nation, those relationships will come under the law. The fact that in some instances the Catholic law was set aside in favor of secular law does not mitigate the fact that society does have an interest in marriage, no matter who regulates it.

 

[St_Francis]

This! I believe that the reason there is so much venom about this issue from both sides is that there are two definitions of “marriage” one is civil and the other is sacramental. In other countries, the civil ceremony and the sacramental ceremony are totally separate, A couple, if the wish can be sacramentally married, but not legally married. the pro traditional marriage crowd is speaking of sacramental marriage, and the pro homosexual “marriage” crowd is speaking about civil marriage. Sacramental marriage can only be between one man and one woman, and this should be protected, but civil marriage, at least in my opinion, is totally different, and is more like a contract.** I see no reason why civil marriage cannot be extended to two men or two women.** Now, ideally, in my opinion, the two processes should be separate, and civil marriage should be called something else, as this misunderstanding of the definition of marriage could conceivably become a religious liberty issue. Also, civil union rights vary by state, so in some cases, civil unions do not have all the same rights as married couples. This needs to be rectified and standardized across the country. This is just my personal opinion, and I know I lean more toward the left than many people on this site.

But why should it be? And why should any sexual relationship be accorded any recognition by the government at all?

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

gay “marriage” adds nothing to society as a whole.

Assuming this is the case, why not allow it, then? If it adds nothing to society but takes nothing away.

Or, if you think it does take something away, what is that something?

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

This! I believe that the reason there is so much venom about this issue from both sides is that there are two definitions of “marriage” one is civil and the other is sacramental. In other countries, the civil ceremony and the sacramental ceremony are totally separate, A couple, if the wish can be sacramentally married, but not legally married. the pro traditional marriage crowd is speaking of sacramental marriage, and the pro homosexual “marriage” crowd is speaking about civil marriage. Sacramental marriage can only be between one man and one woman, and this should be protected, but civil marriage, at least in my opinion, is totally different, and is more like a contract. I see no reason why civil marriage cannot be extended to two men or two women. Now, ideally, in my opinion, the two processes should be separate, and civil marriage should be called something else, as this misunderstanding of the definition of marriage could conceivably become a religious liberty issue. Also, civil union rights vary by state, so in some cases, civil unions do not have all the same rights as married couples. This needs to be rectified and standardized across the country. This is just my personal opinion, and I know I lean more toward the left than many people on this site.

This is pretty close to my personal opinion.

The fear about the government being involved with marriage goes both ways. On one hand, the government might be very traditional, and decide not to allow gay marriage, no matter what a church decides. On the other hand, the government might be very progressive, and decide to force all groups to recognise gay marriage.

Wouldn’t it be better if the different religions decide what is marriage, and the government doesn’t make any religious group recognise its definition?

The way that it is, like you say, the two ideas of marriage are being conflated, and the government is in some places stomping on the rights of gays, and in other places stomping on the rights of the religious, by trying to make them recognise gay unions as legitimate.

 

[fix]

This! I believe that the reason there is so much venom about this issue from both sides is that there are two definitions of “marriage” one is civil and the other is sacramental. In other countries, the civil ceremony and the sacramental ceremony are totally separate, A couple, if the wish can be sacramentally married, but not legally married. the pro traditional marriage crowd is speaking of sacramental marriage, and the pro homosexual “marriage” crowd is speaking about civil marriage. Sacramental marriage can only be between one man and one woman, and this should be protected, but civil marriage, at least in my opinion, is totally different, and is more like a contract. I see no reason why civil marriage cannot be extended to two men or two women. Now, ideally, in my opinion, the two processes should be separate, and civil marriage should be called something else, as this misunderstanding of the definition of marriage could conceivably become a religious liberty issue. Also, civil union rights vary by state, so in some cases, civil unions do not have all the same rights as married couples. This needs to be rectified and standardized across the country. This is just my personal opinion, and I know I lean more toward the left than many people on this site.

No Catholics are not talking about sacramental marriage. They are talking about marriage which has one definition. This was understood by all rational people until about 15 years ago.

The idea that the state can simply redefine a natural institution is not only a terrible abuse but frankly it is absurd.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

No Catholics are not talking about sacramental marriage. They are talking about marriage which has one definition. This was understood by all rational people until about 15 years ago.

The idea that the state can simply redefine a natural institution is not only a terrible abuse but frankly it is absurd.

What if another religion pops up and wants to treat marriage as something different than it used to be? What non-religious argument is there to restrict them from redefining the word?

 

[ignatius777]

Assuming this is the case, why not allow it, then? If it adds nothing to society but takes nothing away.

Or, if you think it does take something away, what is that something?

The role of govt is to protect society as a whole not dispense privileges to a specific group. Everything the govt does should be measured against how its actions benefit everyone.

Gay “marriage” diminishes the value of society’s basic building block for stability, the family. By diminishing its value govt is saying family is no longer a necessary element to a stable society.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

The role of govt is to protect society as a whole not dispense privileges to a specific group. Everything the govt does should be measured against how its actions benefit everyone.

I suppose we simply have different philosophies of government. If the government can allow certain things that even a small group finds important, and it does not substantially harm the rest of society, I think it is the duty of government to allow it.

But maybe there is harm from allowing gay marriage. You seem to hint at a reason right here:

Gay “marriage” diminishes the value of society’s basic building block for stability, the family. By diminishing its value govt is saying family is no longer a necessary element to a stable society.

Is there any evidence that gay marriage erodes the value of the family? What would this evidence look like?

I can imagine maybe divorce rates. Gay marriage has been made legal in some places. Have divorce rates gone up substantially?

As far as I can see, it doesn’t seem as though gay marriage has any affect on the value of the family at all, positive or negative. Two men can marry and start a family, and there is no reason I know of to think that this family has any more or less value than any other (except religious reasons).

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

But why should it be? And why should any sexual relationship be accorded any recognition by the government at all?

You’re starting to sound like me. I had to check to see if I made this post.

 

[triumphguy]

In England Civil marriage started when the idea of a state came into being, and when the state started to regulate inheritances, the passing on of land from one generation to the next, and the imposition of taxes on these transactions. You can’t tax what you don’t know about.

The Church’s role in this was to record such marriages in the parish records.

The Vicar could lose his parish, and therefore his living, if he failed to keep good records, and if too many people were not married in Church.

In 1690 1/2 the “marriages” in England were not official, and not in Church. So there was a lot of revenue being lost.

Many priests were defrocked because of this and fled to Scotland were they could perform marriage ceremonies without documentation. That’s why the “Gretna Green” marriages just across the Scottish Border became so popular. You could get married at 16 without permission from parents.