The bottom line on Catholics and gay intolerance

[FilAmLapsed]

I think they are entitled to civil rights like anyone else and are thus entitled to civil marriage.

I agree that churches or any clergy shouldn’t be forced to perform marriages, gay or straight, if they choose not to.

I cannot however understand bisexuals. I dont mean to offend but it appears to be a"wanting it all" lifestyle, self-indulgent attitude.

Bisexuals like are sexually and emotionally appealed to both genders though not necessarily equally. Some prefer same-gendered or opposite sex partners but are still attracted to the same/opposite gender regardless. I believe those who have a self indulgent attitude are more promiscuous, which any individual who’s homosexual, straight, or bisexual can be. “Wanting it all” is more omnisexual, which you can google about it.

 

[BornAgainBrat]

Let’s not speak officially for the Catholic church here. We are or should be tolerant of those who are same sex attracted. Case closed. If you have any doubts, please contact those in Rome to give you their response and post the reply right here. Some of this faith are confused as to how the Pope himself views these people. I’m on board not supporting gay marriage, but these people drawn together have done no evil toward our Church. They are a minor part of society and God created them as he did the rest of us.

 

[Brendan]

. I think they are entitled to civil rights like anyone else and are thus entitled to civil marriage.

They already do. They have the exact same civil rights that anyone else has. If they are unmarried, they may enter into a marital contract with one, adult, consenting, unmarried, human of the opposite sex.

They have the exact same rights than everybody else does, no more, no less. What they want to do is add additional, made up rights on top of it.

So noone here is saying that a homosexual person cannot get married, they just must do it under the same legal conditions that apply to everyone else.

 

[severus68]

They already do. They have the exact same civil rights that anyone else has. If they are unmarried, they may enter into a marital contract with one, adult, consenting, unmarried, human of the opposite sex.

They have the exact same rights than everybody else does, no more, no less. What they want to do is add additional, made up rights on top of it.

So noone here is saying that a homosexual person cannot get married, they just must do it under the same legal conditions that apply to everyone else.

I am just stating my opinion. The US is not the whole world and not all countries allow even civil marriage for same sex couples. Does every state in the US permit sae sex marriages? Does everyone agree on that?

 

[IHeartAquinas]

I started reading this thread over an hour ago. Skipped a few pages to the end, but am concerned that no one is arguing over the actual usage of the term “marriage.” Pages and pages ago, everyone was arguing over what a “homosexual act” was in light of a “homosexual inclination” or whether such a distinction even existed. Did anyone ever wonder since when every partnership between two people wishing to bind themselves together in mutual love and affection had to be called “marriage”? (I am speaking only concerning the United States. I do not have enough information about the rest of the world’s languages and governments to speak for any other country)

I was listening to NPR over the summer and there was actually a discussion on this very topic. The person being interviewed said that since the Gay Liberation Front began in the (60’s? 70’s?), there has been agitation for what we would term today as “gay marriage.” But at the time, it was understood without having to specify that “marriage” was NOT a secular institution and was in fact a religious institution over which the federal government had no real control over. The logical counter to this is the Mormons–but polygamy was outlawed in the United States prior to Mormonism being recognized as a legitimate religion, and Mormons took care of polygamy on their own. The point is that it has only been since the 80’s that people have begun muddying the waters by using marriage to discuss a civil institution.

Now, the speaker raised a very significant point, and I happen to agree with her, that using such purposefully vague language creates two things: one, confusion about what exactly a homosexual “marriage” would be, and two, it would create a dangerous precedent. Not for other groups to get marriage rights, but one with much more dangerous and far reaching consequences–the circumvention of the separation of church and state.

The first argument is based on an anecdotal story concerning the child of a gay couple who asked them “why aren’t you married like Jimmy’s parents?” Right there, the couple is armed with current political language, and they are not prepared to explain that marriage and civil unions are two separate institutions. Instead, the two have become linked in the political mind of the country, and they are flummoxed with how to describe why they are denied the right to join themselves in a legally-binding monogamous union.

The second argument is based on the fact that the word “marriage” is being used at all. Marriage is a religious institution, plain and simple. It is a sacrament (or at least sacred) in every religion on the planet (with few exceptions…the Church of Satan being one of them). Civil union is a similar agreement as that which is conferred by marriage, but is done outside the boundaries of a religious institution. By equating “civil union” to “marriage” in the American political vocabulary, you create a blanket argument for the reform of all institutions of marriage, thereby creating a situation whereby the government would be able to instruct individual religious communities on the new “proper” definition of marriage. It is a reversal of the very reason separation of church and state became institutionalized in America. Instead of the church interfering in politics, politics will begin interfering in the church.

Now, genes and MRI’s and the “collapse of marriage” aside, why are we even discussing “gay marriage” when, properly, it would have to be a “gay civil union” unless being performed in a gay-civil union-friendly religious environment (vis-a-vis the Episcopalians)? Why does no one on either side of the fence attempt to point out the fallacy of using marriage to describe a secular institution?

It’s as ridiculous as saying “ATM machine” or “irregardless.” (As a side note, the fact that my WINDOWS PC doesn’t underline irregardless as not being a word makes me want to rip out Bill Gates’ tongue with a grammarian.)

 

[rossum]

They already do. They have the exact same civil rights that anyone else has. If they are unmarried, they may enter into a marital contract with one, adult, consenting, unmarried, human of the opposite sex.

They have the exact same rights than everybody else does, no more, no less. What they want to do is add additional, made up rights on top of it.

So noone here is saying that a homosexual person cannot get married, they just must do it under the same legal conditions that apply to everyone else.

So let us take that post in a time machine, back to 1966, one year before Loving v Virginia:They have the exact same civil rights that anyone else has. If they are unmarried, they may enter into a marital contract with one, adult, consenting, unmarried, human of the same race and the opposite sex.

They have the exact same rights than everybody else does, no more, no less. What they want to do is add additional, made up rights on top of it.
The secular definition of who could marry changed in 1967. What is happening now is that the secular definition is changing again.

rossum

 

[Zoe_Brain]

Marriage is a religious institution, plain and simple.

Which is why marriage celebrants have to be Priests, or Ministers. They can’t be, say, Judges, and there’s no non-religious “registry office” where people can get married, only churches and temples.

Moreover, that’s why Unitarian Churches can marry same-sex couples anywhere in the USA, as there’s freedom of religious belief. It’s also why Atheists have never been able to marry.

I mean, imagine a topsy-turvy world where marriages were secular. Then instead of having the Ecclesiastical tribunals we all know deciding whether a marriage could be annulled or not - or a divorce granted for those religions which allow such - the legal status would depend on rulings of some kind of “Divorce Court”, which could over-rule Religious authorities as far as the law was concerned! You could even get married in the office of a Justice of the Peace, or in a garden by a “marriage celebrant”. Why even Atheists could get married! How absurd.

Heck, imagine a situation where a minister married someone, then had to forward a certificate to some secular authority otherwise the marriage wouldn’t be legally recognised. Too ridiculous for words!

Imagine such a world, where someone could write this:

The ceremony in which a marriage is enacted and announced to the community is called a wedding. A wedding in which a couple marry in the “eyes of the law” is called a civil marriage. Religions also facilitate weddings, in the “eyes of God”. In many European and some Latin American countries, where someone chooses a religious ceremony, they must also hold that ceremony separate from the civil ceremony. Certain countries, like Belgium, Bulgaria and the Netherlands even legally demand that the civil marriage has to take place before any religious marriage. In some countries, notably the United States, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Spain both ceremonies can be held together; the officiant at the religious and community ceremony also serves as an agent of the state to enact the civil marriage. That does not mean that the state is “recognizing” religious marriages; the “civil” ceremony just takes place at the same time as the religious ceremony. Often this involves simply signing a register during the religious ceremony. If that civil element of the full ceremony is left out for any reason, in the eyes of the law no marriage took place, irrespective of the holding of the religious ceremony.

Whilst some countries, such as Australia, permit marriages to be held in private and at any location, others, including England, require that the civil ceremony be conducted in a place specially sanctioned by law (ie. a church or registry office), and be open to the public. An exception can be made in the case of marriage by special emergency license, which is normally granted only when one of the parties is terminally ill. Rules about where and when persons can marry vary from place to place. Some regulations require that one of the parties reside in the locality of the registry office. Because of Australia’s very relaxed rules on marriage, many famous people, including Michael Jackson, have opted to marry in Australia, so as to have a private ceremony.

The way in which a marriage is enacted has changed over time, as has the institution of marriage itself. In Europe during the Middle Ages, marriage was enacted by the couple promising verbally to each other that they would be married to each other; the presence of a priest or other witnesses was not required. This promise was known as the “verbum”. If made in the present tense (“I marry you”, it was unquestionably binding; if made in the future tense (“I will marry you”), it would, by itself constitute a betrothal, but if the couple proceeded to have sexual relations, the union was a marriage. As part of the Reformation, the role of recording marriages and setting the rules for marriage passed to the state; by the 1600s many of the Protestant European countries had heavy state involvement in marriage. As part of the Counter-Reformation, the Catholic Church added a requirement of witnesses to the promise, which under normal circumstances had to include the priest.

• solarnavigator.net/animal_kingdom/humans/marriage.htm

 

[severus68]

Which is why marriage celebrants have to be Priests, or Ministers. They can’t be, say, Judges, and there’s no non-religious “registry office” where people can get married, only churches and temples.

Moreover, that’s why Unitarian Churches can marry same-sex couples anywhere in the USA, as there’s freedom of religious belief. It’s also why Atheists have never been able to marry.

I mean, imagine a topsy-turvy world where marriages were secular. Then instead of having the Ecclesiastical tribunals we all know deciding whether a marriage could be annulled or not - or a divorce granted for those religions which allow such - the legal status would depend on rulings of some kind of “Divorce Court”, which could over-rule Religious authorities as far as the law was concerned! You could even get married in the office of a Justice of the Peace, or in a garden by a “marriage celebrant”. Why even Athiests could get married! How absurd.

We can call non religious marriages as civil unions if you like but the fact is that couples (same sex or otherwise) are married even if it is a “civil union”. There are also other religious ceremonies like Hindu and Jewish marriages of course. Atheists can and do get married in civil registeries, like it or not.

I think what is important is (for Christians at least) is a marriage blessed by God. Since we believe that such a true marriage can only be between a man and a woman, then no same sex couple can have a Christian marriage.

As I write this, I feel some sadness as there may well be same sex couples who believe in their hearts that they are Christian and wish their unions blessed in church We are all after all, sinners. However, I still cannot in my heart and in good conscience believe that it is right for the Church to sanctify such unions.

 

[gearhead]

They already do. They have the exact same civil rights that anyone else has. If they are unmarried, they may enter into a marital contract with one, adult, consenting, unmarried, human of the opposite sex.

They have the exact same rights than everybody else does, no more, no less. What they want to do is add additional, made up rights on top of it.

That’s an awful justification. By the same logic, Christians in Saudi Arabia have religious freedom. Even though they can’t legally own a Bible or build a church, they can read the Qur’an just like anyone else and go to whatever mosque they want. They have the exact same rights that everybody else does, don’t they?

 

[Nec5]

Societal norms would be the reason. If polygamists tried this, I would venture a guess that we would see a new Constitutional Amendment to outlaw it.

Yet, you refuse to give them a reason besides “majority rejects it”, which is the very rationale that gay rights groups overcame. There has to be a logical/legal/firm reason to deny them marital rights once you grant the same rights to gay couples.

Societal norms have drastically changed over the last 3-4 decades. Relying upon them to uphold something is not reasonable. I agree with you that constitutional amendments might work, but I view them in today’s culture as a fantasy. You can’t get enough people to consistently support anything for a period of 5-10 years (which is the standard time it takes for an amendment to go through I think?).

 

[Brendan]

I am just stating my opinion. The US is not the whole world and not all countries allow even civil marriage for same sex couples. Does every state in the US permit sae sex marriages? Does everyone agree on that?

I am simply stating civil contract law ( which is what a civil marriage) is. One cannot claim to be discriminated against when the exact same terms of contract entry apply to everyone.

Likewise, a gay person cannot claim they are being prevented from entering into a civil marriage contract simply because they disagree with the terms that apply to everyone else.

 

[Brendan]

That’s an awful justification. By the same logic, Christians in Saudi Arabia have religious freedom. Even though they can’t legally own a Bible or build a church, they can read the Qur’an just like anyone else and go to whatever mosque they want. They have the exact same rights that everybody else does, don’t they?

But we are not talking about civil contract law in that case. But that is what marriage is, in civil terms, a legal contract.

If worship in Saudi Arabia is defined as entering into a legal contract with an Iman, then yes you would be correct. But Saudi Arabia does not define worship as a legal contract. US States, on the other hand, DO define civil marriage in contractual terms.

So if we are going to discuss what civil marriage is, and is not, we have to view in as such.

If you start talking about who LOVES whom, then we have left the legal realm and entered into metaphysics.

 

[Christopher68]

Yet, you refuse to give them a reason besides “majority rejects it”, which is the very rationale that gay rights groups overcame. There has to be a logical/legal/firm reason to deny them marital rights once you grant the same rights to gay couples.

Societal norms have drastically changed over the last 3-4 decades. Relying upon them to uphold something is not reasonable. I agree with you that constitutional amendments might work, but I view them in today’s culture as a fantasy. You can’t get enough people to consistently support anything for a period of 5-10 years (which is the standard time it takes for an amendment to go through I think?).

Let’s assume that from a legal standpoint, ‘marriage’ is amended to be a union between any two adults. Polygamy would be more than two, and thus would not qualify.

In your worst-case scenario, if people opened their morning newspaper and read the headline - ‘Supreme Court allows polygamy in all 50 states’ - the outcry would be immediate and overwhelming. A Constitutional Amendment would take much less than 5-10 years in that instance.

 

[jrwaiss]

It has been hard for me to keep up with this thread. I made this summary to help me formulate my own thoughts.

The Original Topic was: How to explain that being Catholic does not mean being intolerant to gays?

Gay relationships are morally wrong… we are going to come across as hateful bigots… like the people who still adamantly support racism now.
We have to come up with more compelling arguments to counter this. Anybody?

Some suggestions that have been made so far are:

Just politely tell them that we don’t hate them for being gay, we just think they’re wrong for being gay.

Love the sinner, hate the sin

The first thing to do is point out that disagreement is not intolerance, that is simply how their activists are trying to frame the argument in order to gain appeal. If it’s just a game, open to everyone, one might cast the same stone at them and ask them to stop being intolerant of the Church, of heterosexuals who disagree with them, or the people in California who have twice voted gay marriage down.

Along this line, Drawmack notes:

First, I ask, “What does it mean when something is tolerated?”, “Do you tolerate things you like and agree with or do you accept them?”, “Do you tolerate things that are just and true or do you accept them?”
Then I explain that you can only tolerate something if it is wrong. You cannot tolerate what you agree with.
Finally, I explain that I do tolerate homosexuality. I have never, not once in my life, killed, beat, maimed, or harmed in any way someone for being gay. I have never, not once in my life, denied someone employment for being gay – and I’ve personally filled over 100 positions. I have never, in any way, discriminated against anyone because of age, race, religion, or gender. Therefore I have shown complete and absolute tolerance. What I lack is acceptance. I do not accept the gay lifestyle and if asked for my opinion will explain my opinion. If you don’t want to know how I feel then don’t ask me!

maggiemay2u has some similar insights:

There is no lack of tolerance for homosexuals in the Catholic Church. To submit to the label of intolerance damages the truth of Church teaching. Just as we embrace all persons, regardless of disorder, limitation or disability, we embrace homosexuals. Just as we reach out to our divorced and remarried Catholics, we do not embrace the sin of their life style.

SteveGC makes some excellent points

I think the first thing we have to do as Catholics is be very accurate in our phraseology…

Let me paraphrase the rest of his post:

• Our first step is to clearly define our terms.
• Distinguish a “gay relationship” from that of having a deep friendship, avoiding physicality that is morally wrong.
• Behaviors, not persons, are sins. Gay sexual or intimate relationships are morally wrong, just as any physical sexual relationships outside of marriage.
• Prayer is of course what is needed most, with which Forum Master concurs:

Prayer and fasting are needed.

What the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2357-9) teaches is:
“Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
 So, the best way to explain that Catholic Church is not intolerant toward those with same-sex attraction is with our deeds of friendship and respect. Every human person has an intrinsic dignity as loved and created by God and for love. If God loves them then so should we.

 But Pope Benedict reminds us that love without truth is empty and false (Caritas in Veritate, 3). So, if they do not want us to condition our love for them on them changing, then they should not expect us Catholics to change for us to be loved and tolerated--we ask them for a little toleration too.

 What the Church asks of them she asks of all of us: chaste love. It is not easy for any one of us. So, let’s pray and support each other, developing relationships based on love and truth.

Fr. John Waiss
Author of Born to Love​

 

[severus68]

I am simply stating civil contract law ( which is what a civil marriage) is. One cannot claim to be discriminated against when the exact same terms of contract entry apply to everyone.

Likewise, a gay person cannot claim they are being prevented from entering into a civil marriage contract simply because they disagree with the terms that apply to everyone else.

I do understand that civil marriage is a contract. I am not saying that being gay gives anyone more rights. That would certainly not be right.

I did want to know the position in the US today. Do all states permit same sex civil marriage?

 

[Nec5]

Let’s assume that from a legal standpoint, ‘marriage’ is amended to be a union between any two adults. Polygamy would be more than two, and thus would not qualify. .

Right now, the definition is one man, one woman. The new definition of any two adults eliminates sex(male/female) as a requirement/distinction. Why is “number” any less discriminatory than sex?

Also, the “any two adults” amendment includes by definition adult brothers and sisters. etc…

 

[Christopher68]

Right now, the definition is one man, one woman. The new definition of any two adults eliminates sex(male/female) as a requirement/distinction. Why is “number” any less discriminatory than sex?

Also, the “any two adults” amendment includes by definition adult brothers and sisters. etc…

I understand what you are saying. Let me ask this question - what is your ‘worst case’ scenario should things play out as you think they will? And my second question - if that happens, why wouldn’t society rise up as squash it?

 

[gearhead]

But we are not talking about civil contract law in that case. But that is what marriage is, in civil terms, a legal contract.

If worship in Saudi Arabia is defined as entering into a legal contract with an Iman, then yes you would be correct. But Saudi Arabia does not define worship as a legal contract. US States, on the other hand, DO define civil marriage in contractual terms.

What difference does that make? Everyone still gets the same rights, which was the point you based your previous argument on.

It has been hard for me to keep up with this thread. I made this summary to help me formulate my own thoughts.

The Original Topic was: How to explain that being Catholic does not mean being intolerant to gays?

Here’s the thing, though. On its face, this is intolerant of homosexuality:

What the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2357-9) teaches is:
“Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Why go through the charade of painting this as tolerant? It’s not. Why not simply say, “yes, we’re intolerant of homosexuality, but we’re right to be so”?

 

[gearhead]

Right now, the definition is one man, one woman. The new definition of any two adults eliminates sex(male/female) as a requirement/distinction. Why is “number” any less discriminatory than sex?

Whether or not it’s discriminatory, I don’t know of any legal protection that guarantees a group of people the same rights as an individual or vice versa.

Also, the “any two adults” amendment includes by definition adult brothers and sisters. etc…

Does it? Apparently, DOMA doesn’t mention anything about brothers or sisters in its definition of marriage:

Definition of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

Since it’s illegal for a brother and sister to marry now, I guess that restriction is given in some other law. Or is this a state-level thing?

 

[BeckettL]

My post is in response to that posted by Steven G (in response to Darren). This was a strong, informed, unbias post in response to a bias and uninformed perspective. A very good friend of mine (not catholic) stated during a conversation that it is not his position to make a judgement against someone because they are gay, just as he would hope a judgement would not be made against him for being heterosexual, however his belief supports a loving God. Therefore his position is that he will love others as Jesus loves us all, aside from the personal “relationship” choices of others, and judgement is ultimately passed by God.

I agree with that friend, and with Steven G. in that while some claim that homosexuality may not be a conscious choice, and (some) may be born with the inclination toward same gender attraction, that is not synonymous with natural or correct/moral action.

Loving another as a child of God is not approval or support of immoral action.