The bottom line on Catholics and gay intolerance

[Diane_Lynn]

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. I’m personally okay with “I don’t know” as the answer to the big question of why we exist until we figure it out better. I certainly don’t think it helps our understanding by filling the holes in our knowledge with guesswork.

No, he didn’t. The Garden of Eden story is a myth.

I find it odd that you would come to this conclusion. Genesis states that God provided all the animals to Adam as potential companions; it was only after he rejected all of them that God created Eve. I don’t see how you can interpret this to say that it was God’s intent all along to “propagate the earth with His ‘seed’”.

Also, the passage certainly wasn’t seen as supporting opposite-sex monogamous relationships for the millenia that polygamy was practiced by the Jews, as is described in the Bible.

But here’s the thing - there are two questions here:

1. do you feel that it’s reasonable for you to believe in all these things (e.g. God exists and he created marriage in a certain way)?
2. do you feel that it’s unreasonable for anyone to disbelieve in any of these things?

The first question deals with your own conscience and actions; apparently you do think that these beliefs are reasonable - fair enough. And I fully support you in your decision to not enter into a same-sex marriage yourself.

However, the second question is the one that matters for public policy. If you want to be justified in banning same-sex marriage, it’s not just a matter of you believing that your own viewpoint is valid; it’s a matter of believing (and demonstrating, ideally) that the opposing viewpoint is invalid.

It is obvious we totally disagree and I know that we do not read the same bible. But then you do not believe in God being that you are an atheist and I on the other hand have very strong beliefs in my Catholic Faith and adhere to the Encyclical Divino Affante Spirtu of the 2nd Vatican Council. It seems you expect to go into nothing once you die; I believe my actions on this earth will determine my place to be shared with my God.

You condemn the bible whereas I find it embracing and at the same time fully understanding that some interpretations might well be inexact because of the languages from which they came. The core of the scripture is the point though and not simply a person or a religions favorable interpretation designed to serve self rather than God.

Yes, I do think the act of same sex is lust personified and should be banned at least from intruding upon an innocent child with such ‘invalid’ programs such as GLAD and other pro- homosexual programs.

 

[KathleenMary]

Oh, it is true that some persons who are homosexual have nothing to do with religion. But quite a large number of gays and lesbians are religious. And a number of Christian denominations, at least in the US, accept gay marriage.

Marriage, as a legal contract, is a secular institution. The legal and economic benefits which come from this legal contract are non-religious.

But marriage, as a religious practice, is not secular. Its benefits are not legal and economic, but spiritual.

Some confusion exists because the word “marriage” is used for a secular contract and for a religious practice. But I do think the two are different, and the difference should be distinguished.

Yes, the two perspectives are completely different. It is unfortunate that we are required now to use the same terminology for things that are so drastically different. I believe you suggested that homosexuals enter into their “marriages” for religious purposes. I was surprised to hear that, as any discussions about the validity of those “marriages”, as such, seem to depend on staying away from what God wants.

Some homosexuals are religious, some are not; some heterosexuals are religious, some are not. That’s really not the point. What we were discussing is whether or not homosexuals are inclined to connect their newly defined “marriages” to a religious purpose or sacramental status. In my experience they steer clear of making that connection for their unions. More often than not, God is deemed to have no relevance/no say in those relationships. Suggesting that those marriages are somehow religious in nature makes them answerable to Him; and this is where people get into all the biblical discussions which same-sex marriage proponents, more often than not, try to avoid or discount.

 

[Dale_M]

More often than not, God is deemed to have no relevance/no say in those relationships. Suggesting that those marriages are somehow religious in nature makes them answerable to Him; and this is where people get into all the biblical discussions which same-sex marriage proponents, more often than not, try to avoid or discount.

Well, I am only going by what I have read in blogs and online forums, so my experience is limited. I am not aware of any studies on the matter, but they may exist.

I do think you underestimate the number of religious marriages among homosexuals, and the participation of gays and lesbians in religious worship. But I can’t cite statistics.

The Bible is less of a hindrance than you might think, coming from a Catholic background. You’re used to definitive interpretations of the Bible as stated by the Church. In protestant circles, everyone interprets the Bible for themselves. Interpretation is very much the key point, since the Bible is contradictory, incomplete and usually regarded as irrelevant in some places. How the Bible is read very much affects what beliefs are seen as supported by the Bible. Even persons who claim to take the Bible literally, don’t actually. They parse it, just as everyone does.

 

[gearhead]

It is obvious we totally disagree and I know that we do not read the same bible.

Apparently we don’t. All my copies of the Bible include verses like 1 John 4:16 and Romans 14:4.

But then you do not believe in God being that you are an atheist and I on the other hand have very strong beliefs in my Catholic Faith and adhere to the Encyclical Divino Affante Spirtu of the 2nd Vatican Council. It seems you expect to go into nothing once you die; I believe my actions on this earth will determine my place to be shared with my God.

How is this relevant?

You condemn the bible whereas I find it embracing and at the same time fully understanding that some interpretations might well be inexact because of the languages from which they came.

Excuse me? Exactly when did I condemn the Bible?

The core of the scripture is the point though and not simply a person or a religions favorable interpretation designed to serve self rather than God.

The core of the scripture as I read it is love: love of God and love for one’s neighbour. I see none of either in the movement to ban same-sex marriage.

Yes, I do think the act of same sex is lust personified and should be banned at least from intruding upon an innocent child with such ‘invalid’ programs such as GLAD and other pro- homosexual programs.

Is that your way of answering my second question? Just so we’re clear: do you think that it’s unreasonable for a person to not believe that God exists, that God instituted marriage, or that God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman only?

 

[gearhead]

Fully agreed. And the opposite could be said for you, I suppose…namely that your argument is dependent on God not existing, not instituting marriage, and not making it one man/one woman. I suppose the difference is that all 3 would have to be taken away to make your support of same-sex marriage unable to be justified. I don’t have a problem admitting that my position rests on the existence of God and His creation of the Church.

The other difference I see is this: there are reasonable arguments and people on both sides of all these issues. I think that we should make allowances under the law for all reasonable viewpoints. This means making sure that the law allows churches to not perform same-sex marriages if that’s their wish, but also making sure that the law allows people to marry their same-sex partners if that’s what they want.

This is not about certitude of knowledge, but certitude of belief…certitude of faith. I don’t need to prove that God exists to advocate against gay marriage…any more than an atheist needs to prove God doesn’t exist to advocate his position.

If we were only talking about your personal feelings about the issue, I think that would be fine… however, I think that when you’re talking about using the law to limit freedom, this has to be objectively justified. “Agreeing to disagree” doesn’t cut it, IMO.

Hmm. Well, I have yet to find the Church teaching that we should fight against the civil rights of homosexuals.

I can’t remember if I mentioned it in this thread or another one on same-sex marriage, but during the debate before same-sex marriage was made legal here in Canada, the archbishop of Toronto published an open letter to the Prime Minister where he called for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ “notwithstanding clause” to be invoked to allow for a same-sex marriage ban.

In terms of American law, this would (roughly) be like asking to suspend the Bill of Rights to allow for a law that would normally be unconstitutional.

So… the short version is that yes, the Church has campaigned against civil rights of homosexuals and taught that it’s the right thing to do.

AFAIK, the letter’s still up on the archdiocese’s web site. Let me know if you want a link.

1609-1611 touches on polygamy.

Are we reading the same thing? There’s nothing in these sections about polygamy that I can see:

Marriage under the pedagogy of the Law

1609 In his mercy God has not forsaken sinful man. The punishments consequent upon sin, “pain in childbearing” and toil "in the sweat of your brow,"100 also embody remedies that limit the damaging effects of sin. After the fall, marriage helps to overcome self-absorption, egoism, pursuit of one’s own pleasure, and to open oneself to the other, to mutual aid and to self-giving.

1610 Moral conscience concerning the unity and indissolubility of marriage developed under the pedagogy of the old law. In the Old Testament the polygamy of patriarchs and kings is not yet explicitly rejected. Nevertheless, the law given to Moses aims at protecting the wife from arbitrary domination by the husband, even though according to the Lord’s words it still carries traces of man’s “hardness of heart” which was the reason Moses permitted men to divorce their wives.101

1611 Seeing God’s covenant with Israel in the image of exclusive and faithful married love, the prophets prepared the Chosen People’s conscience for a deepened understanding of the unity and indissolubility of marriage.102 The books of Ruth and Tobit bear moving witness to an elevated sense of marriage and to the fidelity and tenderness of spouses. Tradition has always seen in the Song of Solomon a unique expression of human love, insofar as it is a reflection of God’s love - a love “strong as death” that "many waters cannot quench."103

And if you note in that entire chapter the frequent superscripted numbers, they are indexed at the bottom referencing Scripture, encyclicals, early Church historical documents, etc. Perhaps sometime later I will try to summarize for you.

That might help. I don’t think it’s really reasonable to expect me to hunt through every link in a document you present.

I’ll concede that understanding of sacramental marriage is not as simply and explicitly resourced as one would hope it to be. You have to keep in mind the bottom-line for a devout Catholic (even when he/she cannot provide you all the info you inquire about)…and that is that we are fully trusting and loyal to the official doctrinal teaching of the Church…even in the absence of clear and explicit understanding of said doctrines. For example, I am not the best versed in the origins of all the details of sacramental marriage…but I know the conclusions of the Church based on those details, and that is fully sufficient for me.

Again, that’s fine for yourself if that’s what you want to do, but I think that if you want to impose this view on others, it needs to have a solid justification.

Also, so far, it seems like you haven’t even established that the Church teaches that the practice of polygamy was ever made improper/illicit/invalid/what-have-you.

 

[SteveGC]

I think some clarification might be in order, in terms of why Catholics are compelled to not be satisfied with merely avoiding same-sex marriage themselves, but also advocate for federal laws to reflect this opposition on a societal level.

Gear, you are right, the Bible reflects the Church teaching that Catholics are called to love God with their whole mind, heart and strength. An integral part of this love we express is obedience to His word. His word is represented by the deposit of faith He gave His Church until the end of the age. The deposit of faith contains the doctrinal teachings pertaining to our eternal salvation and clear guidance on objective morality. All this I know you are familiar with, and recognize that this is the source which we follow through faith to make correct personal choices in our lives in adherence to God’s teachings. I point it out merely to contrast it against another integral part of our calling as Catholics which often is misunderstood by those outside the faith, and that is, a calling to BE Christ for all the world.

Individually and collectively, we are to live our faith outwardly, engaging our society with charity and kindness, but also with Truth…even when Truth is controversial and abrasive. Not many, if any at all, other faiths are driven by this call of outward expression. It is not expression for our own sake, but for those we express it toward. It is for them to see Christ in us, even if what they see might appall them at first, and be completely misunderstood. It is for them to be exposed to the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Christian way is often so polarly opposite to many of the norms of societal behaviors, that when it is expressed it is quite frequently mistaken as a form of hatred or discrimination. But it is not that at all…atleast when it is expressed correctly.

This is why the Catholic must oppose same-sex marriage as a whole. To sit idly by as laws are passed which make same-sex unions routine and normal, is to fail to let Christ live through us as members of the same society which would seek to put immorality into common practice, a failure which allows future generations to see homosexual union, and the intimate sexual relations which are inherent within them, as fully acceptable and encouraged. Much the same way the legalization of abortion has made murder acceptable and encouraged. Not equating homosexual sex with murder necessarily, but God does declare them both to be grave abominations of human behavior. Granted, homosexual unions are not directly sinful like abortion is…but one would have to do some very clever tap-dancing to try to explain how same-sex unions would not be a nationally proclaimed approval of sexual activity among same-sex partners.

And Catholics will be judged for our failures to defend Truth, to stand up for justice, to let Christ be our voice.

If homosexuals want to express their love for one another as a man and woman do in a normal marriage, that’s their business. I wouldn’t condone it, but ultimately, it’s their choice and their journey in life. And I fully understand that officially getting “married” is one of the best ways to express this love to the other person. I get it…that is a huge deal. But the truth is that being banned from marriage does not completely hinder their capacity to express deep love for one another. They can have all kinds of ceremonies and public demonstrations of their love for one another without the formal institution of marriage. Again, I wouldn’t condone this type of activity, nor support it myself…but the fact is that they can do this right now within the law.

The other issue of course is civil rights that accompany formal marriage. I would be interested in seeing a comprehensive list of all the specific rights they long for. I would be surprised if there was no other way to lobby for those rights to be federally granted them except to be allowed to officially get married. I would even bet that there are already processes and procedures in place within the legal system that would allow them to take advantage of similar marital rights they long for.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

I think some clarification might be in order, in terms of why Catholics are compelled to not be satisfied with merely avoiding same-sex marriage themselves, but also advocate for federal laws to reflect this opposition on a societal level.

Gear, you are right, the Bible reflects the Church teaching that Catholics are called to love God with their whole mind, heart and strength. An integral part of this love we express is obedience to His word. His word is represented by the deposit of faith He gave His Church until the end of the age. The deposit of faith contains the doctrinal teachings pertaining to our eternal salvation and clear guidance on objective morality. All this I know you are familiar with, and recognize that this is the source which we follow through faith to make correct personal choices in our lives in adherence to God’s teachings. I point it out merely to contrast it against another integral part of our calling as Catholics which often is misunderstood by those outside the faith, and that is, a calling to BE Christ for all the world.

Individually and collectively, we are to live our faith outwardly, engaging our society with charity and kindness, but also with Truth…even when Truth is controversial and abrasive. Not many, if any at all, other faiths are driven by this call of outward expression. It is not expression for our own sake, but for those we express it toward. It is for them to see Christ in us, even if what they see might appall them at first, and be completely misunderstood. It is for them to be exposed to the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Christian way is often so polarly opposite to many of the norms of societal behaviors, that when it is expressed it is quite frequently mistaken as a form of hatred or discrimination. But it is not that at all…atleast when it is expressed correctly.

This is why the Catholic must oppose same-sex marriage as a whole. To sit idly by as laws are passed which make same-sex unions routine and normal, is to fail to let Christ live through us as members of the same society which would seek to put immorality into common practice, a failure which allows future generations to see homosexual union, and the intimate sexual relations which are inherent within them, as fully acceptable and encouraged. Much the same way the legalization of abortion has made murder acceptable and encouraged. Not equating homosexual sex with murder necessarily, but God does declare them both to be grave abominations of human behavior. Granted, homosexual unions are not directly sinful like abortion is…but one would have to do some very clever tap-dancing to try to explain how same-sex unions would not be a nationally proclaimed approval of sexual activity among same-sex partners.

And Catholics will be judged for our failures to defend Truth, to stand up for justice, to let Christ be our voice.

If homosexuals want to express their love for one another as a man and woman do in a normal marriage, that’s their business. I wouldn’t condone it, but ultimately, it’s their choice and their journey in life. And I fully understand that officially getting “married” is one of the best ways to express this love to the other person. I get it…that is a huge deal. But the truth is that being banned from marriage does not completely hinder their capacity to express deep love for one another. They can have all kinds of ceremonies and public demonstrations of their love for one another without the formal institution of marriage. Again, I wouldn’t condone this type of activity, nor support it myself…but the fact is that they can do this right now within the law.

The other issue of course is civil rights that accompany formal marriage. I would be interested in seeing a comprehensive list of all the specific rights they long for. I would be surprised if there was no other way to lobby for those rights to be federally granted them except to be allowed to officially get married. I would even bet that there are already processes and procedures in place within the legal system that would allow them to take advantage of similar marital rights they long for.

I need say nothing in addition for Steve stated my stance as well in his presentation.

 

[gearhead]

I need say nothing in addition for Steve stated my stance as well in his presentation.

IOW, you need not answer my question?

Just so we’re clear: do you think that it’s unreasonable for a person to not believe that God exists, that God instituted marriage, or that God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman only?

Here’s why this is important: in a free society, people are free to do what is reasonable. As I see it, you have two options (besides ignoring the question):

• take the stance that it’s unreasonable to take any position other than the Catholic one on this issue… which I think demands that you demonstrate why these other positions are unreasonable.
• admit that your desired goal is not a free society.

 

[gearhead]

Note: I cut down some of the quotes to get under the character limit.

I think some clarification …] a calling to BE Christ for all the world.

You’re talking about the Christ who told his followers not to remove a speck from their own eye until they had removed the beam from their own, right?

Individually and collectively, we are to live our faith outwardly, engaging our society …] But it is not that at all…atleast when it is expressed correctly.

I don’t think that many of the actions of the Church were mistaken as hatred or discrimination. When bishops, acting in their role as representatives of the Church, ask for normal civil rights to be taken away from people, actual discrimination is taking place.

This is why the Catholic must oppose same-sex marriage as a whole. To sit idly by as laws are passed which make same-sex unions routine and normal, is to fail to let Christ live through us as members of the same society which would seek to put immorality into common practice, a failure which allows future generations to see homosexual union, and the intimate sexual relations which are inherent within them, as fully acceptable and encouraged.

And how exactly was the Chruch told to put Christ’s example into practice? The Gospel is full of language about being an example to others: “the light of the world” and “a beacon on a hill”. I don’t recall any about clubbing people over the head.

If you really do have “the Way, the Truth, and the Light” on your side, all the world needs is your example. If the goodness of your way of doing things isn’t obvious, this may be because it wasn’t that good to begin with.

Much the same way the legalization of abortion has made murder acceptable and encouraged. Not equating homosexual sex with murder necessarily, but God does declare them both to be grave abominations of human behavior. Granted, homosexual unions are not directly sinful like abortion is…but one would have to do some very clever tap-dancing to try to explain how same-sex unions would not be a nationally proclaimed approval of sexual activity among same-sex partners.

I feel the opposite: I think it takes a fair bit of “tap dancing” to explain how morality can be legislated on this issue but not on all the others where the law goes against Catholic teaching but the Church does nothing.

The law isn’t our moral code; it doesn’t determine right and wrong. All the law is is our framework to allow the different people of society to interact. The law doesn’t declare approval; it just spells out the basic rules we need to allow us to work and live together.

Do you automatically consider every legal act to be moral?

And Catholics will be judged for our failures to defend Truth, to stand up for justice, to let Christ be our voice.

I don’t buy that line. I really can’t see how working against same-sex marriage would be your priority if you were worried about “defending truth”, “standing up for justice” or “letting Christ be your voice”. Christ talked about helping the poor, downtrodden and the needy; what do you think He would think of expending your efforts on same-sex marriage instead of all the issues that He actually talked about?

IMO, all the biblical support you have for the anti-same-sex marriage movement is Paul’s homophobia, and I really don’t see how you can’t just set it aside the same way that the Church did with his misogyny.

If homosexuals want to express their love for one another as a man and woman do in a normal marriage, that’s their business.

…]

Again, I wouldn’t condone this type of activity, nor support it myself…but the fact is that they can do this right now within the law.

For most same-sex couples, it isn’t really the public declaration of marriage that matters; it’s the rights that go with marriage… especially for same-sex couples with kids, since many of the rights of marriage are intended to protect families and the children in them.

The other issue of course is civil rights that accompany formal marriage. I would be interested in seeing a comprehensive list of all the specific rights they long for. I would be surprised if there was no other way to lobby for those rights to be federally granted them except to be allowed to officially get married.

Here you go: gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

That’s the list that the GAO compiled of the civil rights of marriage that are granted at the federal level. There are many more at the state level, though these probably vary from state to state.

I would even bet that there are already processes and procedures in place within the legal system that would allow them to take advantage of similar marital rights they long for.

I know a woman who has lived apart from her partner for years - my friend lives in the US, her partner lives in the UK. You see, she can’t sponsor her partner for immigration like any married couple would be able to do. Could you tell me what process or procedure she could go through to bring her partner into the country so they can live together?

Personally, I have two issues with the whole “same-sex couples can get the rights of marriage other ways” line:

• it’s not true; there are many, many rights of marriage that can’t be granted to same-sex couples no matter what they do.
• even if it were true, to me it’s like saying “I don’t mind if same-sex couples get married… I just want them to pay a special extra tax first, payable to lawyers in the form of large cheques.”

 

[SteveGC]

For most same-sex couples, it isn’t really the public declaration of marriage that matters; it’s the rights that go with marriage… especially for same-sex couples with kids, since many of the rights of marriage are intended to protect families and the children in them.

Here you go: gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

That’s the list that the GAO compiled of the civil rights of marriage that are granted at the federal level. There are many more at the state level, though these probably vary from state to state.

Thanks, I’ll look at these and offer you some examples of how those things can be fought for without making a national showing of same-sex union approval.

I know a woman who has lived apart from her partner for years - my friend lives in the US, her partner lives in the UK. You see, she can’t sponsor her partner for immigration like any married couple would be able to do. Could you tell me what process or procedure she could go through to bring her partner into the country so they can live together?

Off the top of my head? Lobby for changes to immigration laws. But I’ll look at it further and offer more suggestions.

Personally, I have two issues with the whole “same-sex couples can get the rights of marriage other ways” line:

• it’s not true; there are many, many rights of marriage that can’t be granted to same-sex couples no matter what they do.

That’s a defeatist mentality IMO. It’s just that marriage is a convenient shortcut and lessens the work required to go after what they want.

• even if it were true, to me it’s like saying “I don’t mind if same-sex couples get married… I just want them to pay a special extra tax first, payable to lawyers in the form of large cheques.”

But we DO mind if they get married. How is the suggestion and support that they go after other avenues of obtaining certain rights a concession that we “don’t mind if same-sex couples get married”? Or did I misunderstand your point here? That’s certainly possible.

Here’s why this is important: in a free society, people are free to do what is reasonable. As I see it, you have two options (besides ignoring the question):

• take the stance that it’s unreasonable to take any position other than the Catholic one on this issue… which I think demands that you demonstrate why these other positions are unreasonable.

• admit that your desired goal is not a free society.

Wanted to comment on this as well…

Alot of this depends on how you define “unreasonable”. Are you equating it with unacceptable? If so, the answer is no…I don’t believe it is unreasonable that someone would not believe in God, nor take the Catholic position on this issue.

But if you are saying that it means “not acting in accord with sound reason and judgment”, then that is a purely subjective issue, and you will get varied responses from individual Catholics. I, for one, find it quite understandable that many do not believe in God, nor hold the Catholic position. I base that on the acknowledgment that we live in a world which attempts largely to suppress God, hold Him at bay, leave Him out of our lives, and many then seek truth through other means. I do, however, find it somewhat illogical to hold the view that there is no ultimate Creator…that there is no entity which has always existed, which brought everything else INTO existence. I find that belief illogical and yes, unreasonable…but that is my subjective opinion.

Now, you are asking us to prove that the other position is unreasonable. Why? Why do we have to do that? I mean, not that we don’t want to try to help people understand our view and see the fallacy of their position in light of what we believe is objective truth…but why MUST we prove they’re unreasonable in order to be able to believe they are unreasonable? We don’t demand that the gay community prove it to us that our position is unreasonable. We acknowledge fully that they feel we are being unreasonable, and we attempt to give them reason, but we don’t demand they “prove” we’re unreasonable. Again, I don’t need to convince a homosexual that same-sex union is wrong in order for me to oppose same-sex union law. Sure, I won’t get far with harmonizing with the homosexual if I make no attempt to charitably discourse with him about my position…but I’m fine with letting that take a backseat while I cast my vote against gay union. Just like they’re content to never try to convince me they’re same-sex union is moral while prioritizing lobbying to make same-sex union legal. Perhaps I don’t understand your ultimate point here? Help me with that.

You also said we should perhaps admit that “our goal is not a free society”. Not sure I understand you…we have plenty of other laws in place right now (including a federal ban on same-sex marriage)…and we still have a “free society”. How do you define a “free society”? Are you saying that unless we allow same-sex people to get married, we don’t live in a “free society”?

 

[SteveGC]

You’re talking about the Christ who told his followers not to remove a speck from their own eye until they had removed the beam from their own, right?

That’s talking about personal judgment of the eternal destiny of individuals. This is not within the scope of the Catholic pro-life effort, at least, not from the Church’s authoritative position. Being Christ for the world is to engage our society that we live in and stand up for objective morality. It is not to condemn anyone or righteously proclaim sin in others. We are all sinners, and all fall short of the glory of God.

I don’t think that many of the actions of the Church were mistaken as hatred or discrimination. When bishops, acting in their role as representatives of the Church, ask for normal civil rights to be taken away from people, actual discrimination is taking place.

Again, a rogue bishop here and there does not equate to Church authority, nor Church guidance or official teaching. You will not find any Church teaching on rights discrimination for any individual, but plenty of teaching on support for civil rights for all. IOW, these Canadian bishops, if truly going directly after civil rights, are not acting in accord with official teaching of Rome.

And how exactly was the Chruch told to put Christ’s example into practice? The Gospel is full of language about being an example to others: “the light of the world” and “a beacon on a hill”. I don’t recall any about clubbing people over the head.

Clubbing over the head?

If you really do have “the Way, the Truth, and the Light” on your side, all the world needs is your example. If the goodness of your way of doing things isn’t obvious, this may be because it wasn’t that good to begin with.

You’ll have to be more specific with your issue here. I’m not suggesting to you that the Catholic Church is a hotel for saints…it is a hospital for sinners. So, the behaviors of individual Catholics throughout history, from Rome to Roanoke, has not always been exemplary, or even aligned with the example and teaching of Christ…but that is not to be equated with the Church’s official teaching from Christ. We all know how we are to behave; it’s been revealed. The type of movements with respect to U.S. politics from Catholics is varied, I’m sure. I can’t speak for those who do things without charity or fairness. All I can tell you is that the faithful are called to make a unified voice on behalf of Christ to oppose those things which are reasonably identified as gravely immoral. Gay marriage happens to be one of those many issues.

I feel the opposite: I think it takes a fair bit of “tap dancing” to explain how morality can be legislated on this issue but not on all the others where the law goes against Catholic teaching but the Church does nothing.

Examples please. I addressed adultery, fornication, divorce, and other examples someone posited earlier (perhaps it wasn’t you, I can’t recall).

The law isn’t our moral code; it doesn’t determine right and wrong. All the law is is our framework to allow the different people of society to interact. The law doesn’t declare approval; it just spells out the basic rules we need to allow us to work and live together.

Do you automatically consider every legal act to be moral?

I thought I had been clear earlier that I fully agree that the law is not a moral standard, but it is a large scale enabler of behaviors…whether they be deemed moral or immoral by certain groups. As it serves as this massive enabler, people are compelled to raise their voice in support of, or in opposition to, specific legislation that enables specific behaviors in society. The law does declare approval, especially to those without a substantial moral framework, who are inclined to act on instinct or impulse, driven largely by their fallen nature. For them, civil penal consequences must exist in order to keep them from committing heinous acts toward fellow man…or as a community, to keep them from establishing a standard of acceptable behavior that is inherently immoral.

I don’t buy that line. I really can’t see how working against same-sex marriage would be your priority if you were worried about “defending truth”, “standing up for justice” or “letting Christ be your voice”. Christ talked about helping the poor, downtrodden and the needy; what do you think He would think of expending your efforts on same-sex marriage instead of all the issues that He actually talked about?

You won’t get any argument from me that we are not called to be a “one issue” advocate. Are you accustomed to interacting with Christians who limit their activism to the same-sex marriage issue alone? I know of no such Catholics. All the faithful ones I know of are equally as involved and committed to doing their part in the fight against poverty, hunger, injustice, and any other physical or spiritual affliction facing the human race. They are also equally vocal in other political issues, such as abortion.

IMO, all the biblical support you have for the anti-same-sex marriage movement is Paul’s homophobia, and I really don’t see how you can’t just set it aside the same way that the Church did with his misogyny.

Don’t need exclusively “biblical support” for it, gear. All we need is Church official guidance and teaching. That’s listening to Christ Himself. Never heard of Paul being homophobic before. I suppose that’s debatable.

…continued below…

 

[SteveGC]

For most same-sex couples… it isn’t really the public declaration of marriage that matters; it’s the rights that go with marriage… especially for same-sex couples with kids, since many of the rights of marriage are intended to protect families and the children in them.

Here you go: gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

That’s the list that the GAO compiled of the civil rights of marriage that are granted at the federal level. There are many more at the state level, though these probably vary from state to state.

Thanks, I’ll look at these and offer you some examples of how those things can be fought for without making a national showing of same-sex union approval.

I know a woman who has lived apart from her partner for years - my friend lives in the US, her partner lives in the UK. You see, she can’t sponsor her partner for immigration like any married couple would be able to do. Could you tell me what process or procedure she could go through to bring her partner into the country so they can live together?

Off the top of my head? Lobby for changes to immigration laws. But I’ll look at it further and offer more suggestions.

Personally, I have two issues with the whole “same-sex couples can get the rights of marriage other ways” line:

• it’s not true; there are many, many rights of marriage that can’t be granted to same-sex couples no matter what they do.

That’s a defeatist mentality IMO. It’s just that marriage is a convenient shortcut and lessens the work required to go after what they want.

• even if it were true, to me it’s like saying “I don’t mind if same-sex couples get married… I just want them to pay a special extra tax first, payable to lawyers in the form of large cheques.”

But we DO mind if they get married. How is the suggestion and support that they go after other avenues of obtaining certain rights a concession that we “don’t mind if same-sex couples get married”? Or did I misunderstand your point here? That’s certainly possible.

Here’s why this is important: in a free society, people are free to do what is reasonable. As I see it, you have two options (besides ignoring the question):

• take the stance that it’s unreasonable to take any position other than the Catholic one on this issue… which I think demands that you demonstrate why these other positions are unreasonable.

• admit that your desired goal is not a free society.

Wanted to comment on this as well…

Alot of this depends on how you define “unreasonable”. Are you equating it with unacceptable? If so, the answer is no…I don’t believe it is unreasonable that someone would not believe in God, nor take the Catholic position on this issue.

But if you are saying that it means “not acting in accord with sound reason and judgment”, then that is a purely subjective issue, and you will get varied responses from individual Catholics. I, for one, find it quite understandable that many do not believe in God, nor hold the Catholic position. I base that on the acknowledgment that we live in a world which attempts largely to suppress God, hold Him at bay, leave Him out of our lives, and many then seek truth through other means. I do, however, find it somewhat illogical to hold the view that there is no ultimate Creator…that there is no entity which has always existed, which brought everything else INTO existence. I find that belief illogical and yes, unreasonable…but that is my subjective opinion.

Now, you are asking us to prove that the other position is unreasonable. Why? Why do we have to do that? I mean, not that we don’t want to try to help people understand our view and see the fallacy of their position in light of what we believe is objective truth…but why MUST we prove they’re unreasonable in order to be able to believe they are unreasonable? We don’t demand that the gay community prove it to us that our position is unreasonable. We acknowledge fully that they feel we are being unreasonable, and we attempt to give them reason, but we don’t demand they “prove” we’re unreasonable. Again, I don’t need to convince a homosexual that same-sex union is wrong in order for me to oppose same-sex union law. Sure, I won’t get far with harmonizing with the homosexual if I make no attempt to charitably discourse with him about my position…but I’m fine with letting that take a backseat while I cast my vote against gay union. Just like they’re content to never try to convince me they’re same-sex union is moral while prioritizing lobbying to make same-sex union legal. Perhaps I don’t understand your ultimate point here? Help me with that.

You also said we should perhaps admit that “our goal is not a free society”. Not sure I understand you…we have plenty of other laws in place right now (including most states banning same-sex marriages, and a federal ban on their official recognition)…and we still have a “free society”. Or maybe we don’t, to you? How do you define a “free society”? Are you saying that unless we allow same-sex people to get married, we don’t live in a “free society”?

 

[SteveGC]

I made this comment earlier in the above post…

That’s a defeatist mentality IMO. It’s just that marriage is a convenient shortcut and lessens the work required to go after what they want.

looking back at it, I think it was an unfair characterization, and would wish to retract the way it came across.

And looking at your linked documentation, I do see the issue from their perspective a bit more clearly.

I still believe there are other civil rights avenues to explore and address without going directly for civil unions/marriage…but I do see your point that there are very difficult challenges that homosexuals face in light of the fact that they feel only naturally drawn to people of their same sex in terms of intimacy and romantic or familial love…and in light of the fact that many varieties of rights were unfortunately written in a fashion which excludes not only homosexuals, but single persons, and/or single parent families as well.

Perhaps this transitions the discussion more into that dimension…the reality of homosexuality as examined by science and by faith… why some are compelled to feel naturally drawn to same sex people and therefore believe they were truly created with a homosexual drive or inclination…and why the Church teaches that God calls them to a life of chastity (regardless of the debatable origins of their homosexuality).

And perhaps there should be discussion about why the government created these rights so inclusive of married people, to the apparent exclusion of all others? I have my presuppositions about that, but it would be an interesting discussion.

 

[almostatheist]

Let’s say, that instead of the term “marriage” the lawmakers of the world had referred to the union of two people and all the rights, privileges, and status that goes with it as some other word, we’ll call it “joining”. Let’s say that “marriage” does not have equal rights, privileges, and status with “joinings”. Let’s say that it has been this way under law since the beginning of civilization. “Marriage” is still a sacrament (like communion), and you still have to be a Catholic man and woman to receive it, but it clearly does not have equal standing with “joining”. In fact, it is sort of looked down on as less legitimate than a “joining”. You’re really just thought of as boyfriend/girlfriend in most social circles. Your marriage is considered outdated and a little naive. It’s basically like having a promise ring or being a part of a club that post people consider to be childish. You are second-class citizens, and you are being denied everything that can be gained by having a “joining”.

Legally and socially this is what a ban on gay marriage does. It’s a different issue entirely from the point of view of a gay couple that wants to be married in the Catholic church (because that will never happen). I know this isn’t going to convince anyone. It seems like most Catholics consider themselves to be “persecuted” even though their religious views are the ones that seem to hold up in court when it comes to this issue. Also, my scenario would never happen because there is no reason to ban any type of person from the full rights, privileges, and status of a marriage (no matter what you call it).

Just saying

 

[almostatheist]

Or maybe the rest of the world could just ban Catholics from eating in restaurants because your cannibalistic tendencies might contaminate our food.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

Or maybe the rest of the world could just ban Catholics from eating in restaurants because your cannibalistic tendencies might contaminate our food.

One more comment I might add to my list of not so wise sayings offered by those who lean toward there never having been a creator. Oh hum!

 

[gearhead]

Again, a rogue bishop here and there does not equate to Church authority, nor Church guidance or official teaching. You will not find any Church teaching on rights discrimination for any individual, but plenty of teaching on support for civil rights for all. IOW, these Canadian bishops, if truly going directly after civil rights, are not acting in accord with official teaching of Rome.

So the former Archbishop of Toronto was a “rogue bishop” on this matter?

Odd, then, that AFIAK, the Vatican or any other Catholic organization hasn’t once publicly responded to his comments. It’s not like they wouldn’t have known about them - despite the fact that they were very public: his “open letter” was published as a full-page ad in every national paper, it’s still up on the archdiocese web site, and Cardinal Ambrozic was very open and frank about his position in many media interviews. And it’s not like nobody has had a chance to respond - this all happened during the leadup to same-sex marriage legalization here, five years ago.

Clubbing over the head?

Yes. There’s plenty of language in the Gospels about being an example to others: being the “light of the world” and such. However, there’s none that I can find about going after the behaviour of others.

Even if I were to accept that the proper “Christian” position is to oppose same-sex marriage, I would still say that the “Christian” way to combat it isn’t to force people to behave as you want them to; it’s to exhibit “proper” behaviour in yourselves and teach by example.

In fact, the epistles talk at fair length about how the way to correct a person’s sin isn’t to attack the sin, but instead to lead the person to faith, and that once the person lives in faith, the “sin” problem will take care of itself.

You’ll have to be more specific with your issue here. I’m not suggesting to you that the Catholic Church is a hotel for saints…it is a hospital for sinners. So, the behaviors of individual Catholics throughout history, from Rome to Roanoke, has not always been exemplary, or even aligned with the example and teaching of Christ…but that is not to be equated with the Church’s official teaching from Christ.

My point is just that when you read Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, the impression that you get is that the “Christ-approved” way of correcting a person’s behaviour is to behave well yourself, and illustrate that your correct behaviour comes from correct faith. AFAICT, he never once suggests that people without “correct” faith should have their actions “corrected” against their will.

We all know how we are to behave; it’s been revealed.

I’ve seen the justification for how it was revealed that same-sex marriage is wrong. I disagree with it, but I can generally follow the logic.

However, I’ve yet to see the justification for how preventing others from entering into same-sex marriage has been “revealed”.

Examples please. I addressed adultery, fornication, divorce, and other examples someone posited earlier (perhaps it wasn’t you, I can’t recall).

I’m thinking more about “sins” that, if you believe the Church, threaten people’s souls with damnation: heresy, schism, apostasy, that sort of thing. Going by the Church’s theology, these matters of of the most vital importance… even moreso, perhaps, than the issue of abortion: after all, doesn’t the value of a person’s earthly life pale in comparison to the value of their eternal soul?

Despite this, though, the Church fervently defends religious freedom for “heretics”. It engages in interfaith events with groups who are leading people away from the “one true church”, and presumably their souls away from heaven in the process.

If you’re worried about the law implicitly endorsing things, then why aren’t you worried about the fact that the law implicitly endorses things that will lead to damnation?

(continued below)

 

[gearhead]

(continued from above)

I thought I had been clear earlier that I fully agree that the law is not a moral standard, but it is a large scale enabler of behaviors…whether they be deemed moral or immoral by certain groups.

I’ve seen you explicitly state this, but it seems like your argument against same-sex marriage is based on the idea that the law is some sort of moral standard. For example:

As it serves as this massive enabler, people are compelled to raise their voice in support of, or in opposition to, specific legislation that enables specific behaviors in society. The law does declare approval, especially to those without a substantial moral framework, who are inclined to act on instinct or impulse, driven largely by their fallen nature. For them, civil penal consequences must exist in order to keep them from committing heinous acts toward fellow man…or as a community, to keep them from establishing a standard of acceptable behavior that is inherently immoral.

So… you know better than everyone else, so you feel you (or perhaps the Church) needs to correct their behaviour the way a parent would correct a child?

I think this view is totally contrary to the principle of freedom.

You won’t get any argument from me that we are not called to be a “one issue” advocate. Are you accustomed to interacting with Christians who limit their activism to the same-sex marriage issue alone? I know of no such Catholics.

I know quite a few who are more “no issue” advocates than “one issue” advocates, who go to Church on Sundays but act decidedly un-Christ-like the rest of the week.

All the faithful ones I know of are equally as involved and committed to doing their part in the fight against poverty, hunger, injustice, and any other physical or spiritual affliction facing the human race. They are also equally vocal in other political issues, such as abortion.

Here’s an example of what I mean:

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops gave $200,000 in declared contributions to the “yes on 8” campaign to prohibit same-sex marriage in California. The Knights of Columbus Headquarters gave $1,400,000; if you go through the contributor listings, you can see many other individual parishes, dioceses and Catholic organizations, as well as undoubtedly huge numbers of small donations from individual Catholics.

Every dollar spent on preventing same-sex couples from marrying represents a dollar that is not spent to feed a hungry person, to give a person medical care, or to do any other charitable work. Every hour spent on the same-sex marriage issue is an hour spent not in pursuit of some other cause. Every demonstration against same-sex marriage represents an opportunity for a demonstration against poverty that isn’t going to happen.

In a large part, the “faithful” have had to turn their back on the needy in order to pursue their position on the same-sex marriage issue.

I don’t have the same issues with the anti-abortion movement. If abortion truly were murder, they would be completely justified in working tirelessly to prevent it. However, even if we take the entire Catholic position as certain truth, I still think that the anti-same-sex marriage movement is morally bankrupt.

 

[almostatheist]

One more comment I might add to my list of not so wise sayings offered by those who lean toward there never having been a creator. Oh hum!

But that’s how your argument sounds to me (and probably a lot of other people). Your argument for not letting gay people marry is based on your moral standard. You believe that by letting gay people marry it will contaminate your idea of marriage.

My scenario is also based on moral principle: that eating people on a regular basis is wrong.

If people stopped letting you eat at restaurants because they thought that your communion habits would contaminate their dining experience you’d probably complain too. Because that is just silly!

 

[redrosetea]

Well, it’s an objective fact - Gay relationships are morally wrong. Unfortunately, in a world that doesn’t believe in objectivity, we are going to come across as hateful bigots. We’re gonna look like the people who still adamantly support racism now.

We have to come up with more compelling arguments to counter this. Anybody?

Sin is sin no matter what excuses are used to justify it