The bottom line on Catholics and gay intolerance

[sharrisec]

Hold on a moment. When you use the phrase “founding fathers”. I think most US citizens assume you mean to creators of our nation. Is that what you are referring to? If so, I am not at all convinced that they were operating out of a religious framework.

Wait a minute, are you saying that laws shouldn’t exist unless they can be uniformly enforced? Its a highly controversial position.

Okay, so that should allow for gay marriage, since it is seen as a religious practice.

Wait a minute… now you are imposing your religious views on everyone else. This seems contrary to the freedom on which the US was founded.

Why are you saying he is imposing his religious views? Nowhere in this quote are the words Church, Jesus etc. even mentioned. It’s not only a religious view, but a moral one. You don’t have to be religious or a devout Catholic to see that a Gay lifestyle is immoral.

Another question is I think there is a double stadard here. When Catholics speak out against immorality we’re considered prudes, bigots etc. and seen as the bad guys. When Gays speak out against our opposition, they cry “civil rights abuse”. What about a Catholic’s rght to have a say in what is imposed on his/her society. I think we all have a say in our country.

 

[almostatheist]

• It is forcing a redefinition of “marriage” from it’s traditional meaning to a substantively altered one. This is forced on everyone who uses the word “marriage”.
• It is forcing others to publicly regard it as acceptable. This involves changes for the way society conducts itself.
• It is forcing young children in public schools to be taught that acting upon ones homosexual inclinations is not only morally acceptable but regarded in an elevated way by society, by virtue of special marriage laws created for these unions.
• It is forcing either motherlessness or fatherlessness upon more and more adopted young children as “gay married” couples use their new legal status to demand their “right” to raise children.

I guess you’re right. I really think that under these guidelines we should make smoking illegal. I really am sick of people forcing such grossness on me. And I truly am being serious. I think that if there is sin, then smoking is definitely a sin. I just wish our economy didn’t rely so heavily on it.

It would seem to be clear that many things are, and will continue to be, forced on societies members by the legalization of “gay marriage”.

Each of the points I made is an issue that could be discussed for days, but even the staunchest proponent of “gay marriage” would concede that it does and will continue to “force” changes in behavior and lifestyle for the general public.

If even one of the bulleted statements I made are true, your statement, “But legalizing gay marriage isn’t forcing anyone to do anything”, would have to be false.

 

[FilAmLapsed]

Same-sex marriage shouldn’t be performed because it doesn’t create children? There are opposite-gender couples who CHOOSE not to have kids (You know, like many religious right and right-wing conservatives believe being homosexual or bisexual is a “choice”) Should they be questioned whether or not they bear fruit in their sanctity and denied if couples do not? I will mention this again, no clergy should be forced to perform marriages they don’t desire to, same or opposite gendered couples.
Remember Mary and Joseph were related when they were married. There are recollections of men with multiple wives in the Bible. Slavery was allowed and if you eye leads you to sin, pluck it out! Women must wear head coverings and are forbidden to make a peep in mass, no exceptions. Children who disobey their parents and men who have same-gender intercourse can be stoned to death. Children born out of wedlock are forbidden in churches, I think. If you marry a spouse who is or becomes abusive, you are stuck with him/her until death do you part. These are key factors to remember to how people a-la-carte scriptures and possibly Catechism. Why believe only parts of the Bible or the Catechism and ignore the rest? If people are SO concerned with saving life, then why are there no activists against the death penalty compared to abortion?

 

[sharrisec]

Same-sex marriage shouldn’t be performed because it doesn’t create children? There are opposite-gender couples who CHOOSE not to have kids (You know, like many religious right and right-wing conservatives believe being homosexual or bisexual is a “choice”) Should they be questioned whether or not they bear fruit in their sanctity and denied if couples do not? I will mention this again, no clergy should be forced to perform marriages they don’t desire to, same or opposite gendered couples.
Remember Mary and Joseph were related when they were married. There are recollections of men with multiple wives in the Bible. Slavery was allowed and if you eye leads you to sin, pluck it out! Women must wear head coverings and are forbidden to make a peep in mass, no exceptions. Children who disobey their parents and men who have same-gender intercourse can be stoned to death. Children born out of wedlock are forbidden in churches, I think. If you marry a spouse who is or becomes abusive, you are stuck with him/her until death do you part. These are key factors to remember to how people a-la-carte scriptures and possibly Catechism. Why believe only parts of the Bible or the Catechism and ignore the rest? If people are SO concerned with saving life, then why are there no activists against the death penalty compared to abortion?

The Church is not opposed to the death penalty.

 

[gearhead]

The Church is not opposed to the death penalty.

… in certain extreme cases. The Church has voiced its opposition repeatedly to the death penalty as it’s practiced in the United States.

 

[FilAmLapsed]

The Church is not opposed to the death penalty.

Thus it would contradict one of the Ten Commandments or in my opinion an important part of the Judeo-Christian faiths: You shall not kill.

 

[Diane_Lynn]

Thus it would contradict one of the Ten Commandments or in my opinion an important part of the Judeo-Christian faiths: You shall not kill.

Once again getting off topic.

Yes the bible does list that as one of the ten commandments but it also states, ‘an eye for an eye’. And did not God send forth the Israelites to kill their enemies? Perhaps my reasoning is that one should be prohibited from killing in anger but if done as a matter of justified cause that would not fit in the same way. Personally I doubt I could ever kill another human being but I suspect if a member of my family were being threatened I might well take up the gun myself and shoot. I wonder if God would consider that a contradiction to the commandment not to kill. I have to believe He would not.

War kills and some wars are justified are they not? Not sure if God would always agree but we seem to think so at times.

I for one am for the death penalty but conditionally. I could go on and on and give a list of those who deserve to die such as child rapists/killers and people who kill for the pleasure of it but I think you get my gist so will not go further and just leave it at that.

 

[SteveGC]

Hold on a moment. When you use the phrase “founding fathers”. I think most US citizens assume you mean to creators of our nation. Is that what you are referring to? If so, I am not at all convinced that they were operating out of a religious framework.

Yes, that’s who I was referring to. And my reading of history reveals that most of our nation’s founding fathers possessed Christian ideals, and fashioned the earliest laws through that lens. I wouldn’t suggest that it was a sufficiently thorough framework, nor that it absolutely should have been…but it seems to me that Christian values were certainly more prevalent in those formative years than they are today. The point I was trying to make here wasn’t so much the contrast of 18th century vs. 21st century influence in lawmaking…but rather to highlight the fact that laws are predominantly made based on a set of morals, and that many things that some people feel Catholics aren’t vocal about (like divorce, adultery, etc) are not behaviors that are as easily identifiable in society, or as easy distinguishable as objectively immoral, and thus were not made into national law. Other things are much more identifiable, reasonably able to be fairly prosecuted, and/or much more clearly immoral…and thus were made formally into law. The Catholic public outcry is quite equally distributed among all of these moral issues that are addressed within the legal system of this country, and rightly so. There is also Catholic outcry against immoral divorce, or adultery, or fornication, etc…but the public doesn’t witness it because those things are not addressed on the judicial level…but more on the localized, personal levels. But the standards of behavioral judgment are the same regardless.

Wait a minute, are you saying that laws shouldn’t exist unless they can be uniformly enforced? Its a highly controversial position.

What do you mean uniformly enforced? I’m saying that one of the criteria used to fashion laws is how practical it is to enforce it. For example, adultery is clearly immoral, but how would you enforce such a law? You can’t do it…not practically. Murder is also clearly immoral, and you can enforce it because there is clear evidence of the aftermath, forensic data to prosecute the perp, and law enforcement resources able to deter and protect…hence, a law against murder was included.

Okay, so that should allow for gay marriage, since it is seen as a religious practice.

No, because marriage is not just a religious practice. It is a religious practice because it is first and foremost a human relationship designed by the designer of humans. And that design was man-woman only.

Wait a minute… now you are imposing your religious views on everyone else. This seems contrary to the freedom on which the US was founded.

No. I’m not forcing anyone to be Catholic, or to believe as I believe. That would be imposing my religion. What I am doing is letting my voice be heard…and my voice is a reflection of my beliefs, just like everyone else’s voice is a reflection of their beliefs. If an atheist fights to allow gay-marriage into the law, then under your logic, he would be imposing his atheist views onto me. But he’s not, nor do I claim he is…I simply oppose him in that attempt to promote gay-marriage. Everyone’s actions are based on their personal views of morality. It’s not an imposition of religion to oppose or promote the legalization of certain behaviors. A person’s religion (or lack thereof) is the foundation for the opposition or the promotion, but the religion itself is not what is being opposed or promoted.

 

[gearhead]

No, because marriage is not just a religious practice. It is a religious practice because it is first and foremost a human relationship designed by the designer of humans. And that design was man-woman only.

This is your religious belief.

No. I’m not forcing anyone to be Catholic, or to believe as I believe. That would be imposing my religion.

You’re forcing people to practice as you and your religion practice on this issue.

If nobody were imposing their views on anyone, then those who want same-sex marriage would be able to have it, and those who disagree with it wouldn’t have to have any involvement with it.

If an atheist fights to allow gay-marriage into the law, then under your logic, he would be imposing his atheist views onto me.

No… if he fights to allow gay marriage in your church, then he’s imposing his views on you.

But he’s not, nor do I claim he is…I simply oppose him in that attempt to promote gay-marriage. Everyone’s actions are based on their personal views of morality. It’s not an imposition of religion to oppose or promote the legalization of certain behaviors.

It depends on the behaviours in question.

A person’s religion (or lack thereof) is the foundation for the opposition or the promotion, but the religion itself is not what is being opposed or promoted.

The view of denominations like the Catholic Church has been enshrined in law at the expense of denominations like the Metropolitan Community Church. How is this not promotion of one religion over another?

 

[SteveGC]

This is your religious belief.

So…my beliefs are able to be defined as “religious”, and yours are able to be defined as “personal”. What’s the difference? They are still merely beliefs, stemming from different sources. The fact that my beliefs stem from my chosen religion has no bearing on their validity as beliefs which form my behaviors and choices, my positions and statements, my yes vote or no vote. I’m not sure why it was important for you to distinguish my beliefs as “religious”…as if I would not acknowledge that fact.

You’re forcing people to practice as you and your religion practice on this issue.

No. If I’m “forcing” anything, it is forcing the government to not allow the definition and nature of marriage to be denigrated. No homosexual has to practice chastity, nor am I forcing them to. The Church is not in the business of forcefully stopping anyone from having sex with someone of their same sex.

And my religious practice on this issue is not about disallowing civil rights to individuals, which is what many in the general public believe Catholics are doing. We are not looking at homosexuals as unworthy of civil rights. If homosexuals want to be able to have the same rights as married couples, then my suggestion would be for them to target specific rights they are wanting, and lobby for them…but I will oppose them going after the right to be formally married in order to conveniently gain all those rights in one fell swoop. That’s a sacred act first and foremost. It’s not originally a civil law…it’s a divine order of human relationship. The only reason we even have the concept of marriage in this world is because God decreed it into being. Homosexuals want to change it’s whole nature simply because this divine concept was included in the law and certain civil rights were attached to it. We’re not to get married for the civil rights…we’re to get married because it is a vocation, it’s a union of two into one, it’s a source of expression of the familial love of God, a means to help bring other souls into the world, and a means to allow two people to come together to help one another achieve eternal life in heaven. Homosexuals can fight for their civil rights without tainting the sanctity of marriage.

If nobody were imposing their views on anyone, then those who want same-sex marriage would be able to have it, and those who disagree with it wouldn’t have to have any involvement with it

. I didn’t say I’m not imposing my views…I said I’m not imposing my religion, which means forcing someone to share my beliefs, and/or join the Church.

It depends on the behaviours in question.

We obviously have a different take on what freedom of religion means. You seem to think that if I oppose someone based on values from my religion, that that infringes on their religious freedom. That’s not what it means. Forcing someone to believe and behave in a certain way that conforms to my religious beliefs is infringement on their right to worship freely. IOW, freedom of religion allows anyone to freely choose what to believe in and how to worship. It doesn’t mean no one can impose their own beliefs into the legal system to campaign for specific legislation that would affect all other people civilly or socially. Everyone is free to do that, regardless of the source of their beliefs…whether it be religious, or atheistic, or what have you.

The view of denominations like the Catholic Church has been enshrined in law at the expense of denominations like the Metropolitan Community Church. How is this not promotion of one religion over another?

Promotion of a specific church’s view over another’s is not a problem. If the MCC desires their views to be “enshrined in law”, then they better get organized and get busy. Everyone is welcome to fight and campaign for what they believe in. The fact that the Catholic Church is more vocal about it doesn’t equate to the Church forcing the religion on others.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

I think Steve raises an important general point. The qualification of some beliefs as “religious” and by implication not to be tolerated as social norms and others as “personal” is illogical. All beliefs are personal. The “personal” beliefs of those who counterpoint their beliefs to those of the religious are usually an amalgam of post Christian liberal humanism and latterly a goodly admixture of Earth mother worship. This amalgam ( environmentlism, anti death penalty, in favour of applying the word Marriage to homosexual unions etc ) is so much a social norm among educated westerners that they are wont to forget that it is mrely a belief system.

 

[gearhead]

So…my beliefs are able to be defined as “religious”, and yours are able to be defined as “personal”. What’s the difference? They are still merely beliefs, stemming from different sources. The fact that my beliefs stem from my chosen religion has no bearing on their validity as beliefs which form my behaviors and choices, my positions and statements, my yes vote or no vote. I’m not sure why it was important for you to distinguish my beliefs as “religious”…as if I would not acknowledge that fact.

I didn’t say that your beliefs weren’t valid. I just think that it’s inherently contradictory to call them “not religious” and at the same time say that they’re based on things put in place by God.

No. If I’m “forcing” anything, it is forcing the government to not allow the definition and nature of marriage to be denigrated.

Which definition?

The Catholic Church has shown itself to be quite capable of maintaining its own defintion for marriage that’s distinct from the one in civil law. You can see many examples of this in the “Ask an Apologist” section where people are told that while they’re married in the eyes of the law, they’re not married in the eyes of the Church.

No homosexual has to practice chastity, nor am I forcing them to. The Church is not in the business of forcefully stopping anyone from having sex with someone of their same sex.

Ah… so it’s not homosexual sex that the Church finds offensive; it’s the idea of people building relationships and families.

And my religious practice on this issue is not about disallowing civil rights to individuals, which is what many in the general public believe Catholics are doing. We are not looking at homosexuals as unworthy of civil rights. If homosexuals want to be able to have the same rights as married couples, then my suggestion would be for them to target specific rights they are wanting, and lobby for them…but I will oppose them going after the right to be formally married in order to conveniently gain all those rights in one fell swoop.

First, I should point out that not all Catholics and members of other anti-same-sex marriage groups share that view. A number of jurisdictions now have put in place prohibitions on granting any “marriage-like benefits” to couples who aren’t legally married.

Second, your language is contradictory. On the one hand, you say that you’re fine with homosexuals having all the civil rights of anyone else, but on the other, you say that they shouldn’t have the right to marry. The right to marry is a civil right. So is the right to equal treatment on the basis of gender. You can’t have it both ways; opposition to same-sex marriage is opposition to certain civil rights for a segment of the population.

That’s a sacred act first and foremost. It’s not originally a civil law…it’s a divine order of human relationship. The only reason we even have the concept of marriage in this world is because God decreed it into being. Homosexuals want to change it’s whole nature simply because this divine concept was included in the law and certain civil rights were attached to it. We’re not to get married for the civil rights…we’re to get married because it is a vocation, it’s a union of two into one, it’s a source of expression of the familial love of God, a means to help bring other souls into the world, and a means to allow two people to come together to help one another achieve eternal life in heaven. Homosexuals can fight for their civil rights without tainting the sanctity of marriage.

For the life of me, I can’t understand the mentality that would say that the sanctity of my marriage would be altered in any way by the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Also, I think you have things backward: same-sex couples aren’t campaigning for marriage just for “civil rights”. They have that sense of vocation that you describe and want to act on it. In some places, the law doesn’t allow them to do so, so they take steps to change this.

I didn’t say I’m not imposing my views…I said I’m not imposing my religion, which means forcing someone to share my beliefs, and/or join the Church.

You’re imposing the behaviours of your religion. The Church says that same-sex couples can’t get married, so you prohibit all same-sex couples from getting married.

We obviously have a different take on what freedom of religion means. You seem to think that if I oppose someone based on values from my religion, that that infringes on their religious freedom. That’s not what it means. Forcing someone to believe and behave in a certain way that conforms to my religious beliefs is infringement on their right to worship freely.

And that’s one of the things that the anti-same-sex marriage movement has done.

IOW, freedom of religion allows anyone to freely choose what to believe in and how to worship. It doesn’t mean no one can impose their own beliefs into the legal system to campaign for specific legislation that would affect all other people civilly or socially. Everyone is free to do that, regardless of the source of their beliefs…whether it be religious, or atheistic, or what have you.

You describe the situation with legal same-sex marriage and protection of freedom of religion: people are free to enter into same-sex marriages if they want, but no church is forced to perform a same-sex marriage. All parties are free to think and act as they see fit. This is not the case when same-sex marriage is prohibited.

Promotion of a specific church’s view over another’s is not a problem.

Actually, it’s a big problem.

If the MCC desires their views to be “enshrined in law”, then they better get organized and get busy. Everyone is welcome to fight and campaign for what they believe in. The fact that the Catholic Church is more vocal about it doesn’t equate to the Church forcing the religion on others.

As long as the law allows for the Catholic viewpoint but not the viewpoint of the MCC, one religion is being forced on another.

 

[SteveGC]

I didn’t say that your beliefs weren’t valid. I just think that it’s inherently contradictory to call them “not religious” and at the same time say that they’re based on things put in place by God.

Don’t think I ever called them “not religious”. I’m happy to proclaim my moral beliefs are sourced directly from my religion. Sorry if I alluded otherwise.

Which definition [of marriage]?

The original one. The one before any man-made laws were ever written. I can see that this will be a huge disconnect for the discussion. If we start from the premise that marriage is a man-made relationship, all your points are valid, and I would freely admit that gays can get married if they want. I mean, if society itself is responsible for the creation of this man/woman relationship, how is it that they would be smarter about how it is to be structured than we are today? But the fact is that marriage is not a man-made relationship…it is God-made…in a very specific way (one man…one woman). It is sacred first…not civil first. The civil part of it is a reflection and defense of it’s sanctity, and the granting of it’s participants certain rights in acknowledgment of their unique oneness with each other. I offer that the founding fathers sought to preserve the divine sanctity by bringing it under the umbrella of legislation.

Ah… so it’s not homosexual sex that the Church finds offensive; it’s the idea of people building relationships and families.

No. What is “offensive” is the denigration of the sanctity of marriage, and it is a Catholic’s duty to defend this sanctity before God. Am I that ambiguous with my dialogue that you infer that the Church is offended by building families?

First, I should point out that not all Catholics and members of other anti-same-sex marriage groups share that view. A number of jurisdictions now have put in place prohibitions on granting any “marriage-like benefits” to couples who aren’t legally married.

What “jurisdictions” are you referring to? Do they represent the Church proper, and Her teachings? I’m a pretty devout Catholic, and I’ve never been led to this sort of behavior toward homosexuals.

Second, your language is contradictory. On the one hand, you say that you’re fine with homosexuals having all the civil rights of anyone else, but on the other, you say that they shouldn’t have the right to marry. The right to marry is a civil right. So is the right to equal treatment on the basis of gender. You can’t have it both ways; opposition to same-sex marriage is opposition to certain civil rights for a segment of the population.

The right to marry is a civil right…but it is only a civil right for one man and one woman, again because marriage is not originally defined by humans. Homosexuals can easily lobby for all their civil rights without going after the institution of marriage.

For the life of me, I can’t understand the mentality that would say that the sanctity of my marriage would be altered in any way by the right of same-sex couples to marry.

Because you have a different take on what both “sanctity” means, and what “marriage” means.

Also, I think you have things backward: same-sex couples aren’t campaigning for marriage just for “civil rights”. They have that sense of vocation that you describe and want to act on it. In some places, the law doesn’t allow them to do so, so they take steps to change this

Their sense of vocation is not aligned properly to what the objectively true vocation is. Again, marriage is God’s relationship decree…not ours. I’ll grant you that many are looking beyond the civil rights part…but only in a very limited and distorted way. Even many Christians don’t fully understand the essence of marriage. Marriage has become distorted in our world to be an institution that merely expresses outwardly the love and devotion two people have for one another. But that is a significant minimalization of what marriage is. It is that, but much much more. And to exclude the other parts of it’s inherent design (i.e. openness to procreation, one man/one woman), is to strip the concept of marriage of it’s very essence. There is no marriage-lite…it’s the full definition…or nothing.

You’re imposing the behaviours of your religion. The Church says that same-sex couples can’t get married, so you prohibit all same-sex couples from getting married.

Debatable that getting married is a “behavior”, but I’ll grant you that semantic. But on the flip side, if gay marriage is legalized, then they prohibit the Church (all of us within Her) from preserving the sanctity of marriage before God…and that is unacceptable to us. It is God’s relationship, not ours. It’s not up for re-definition. Nothing He decrees ever is. The fact that some don’t believe in His authorship of marriage doesn’t make it an invalid reason for us to fight against the move to redefine it for all the world.

You describe the situation with legal same-sex marriage and protection of freedom of religion: people are free to enter into same-sex marriages if they want, but no church is forced to perform a same-sex marriage. All parties are free to think and act as they see fit. This is not the case when same-sex marriage is prohibited

. The Church doesn’t enter the fight against legalization of gay marriage because they fear they’ll be forced to marry same-sex couples. I guarantee you that the Church would never marry two men together regardless of the penalties under law. No…they fight against the legalization of marriage to preserve the sanctity of it’s original and perpetual design by God.

Actually, it’s a big problem. As long as the law allows for the Catholic viewpoint but not the viewpoint of the MCC, one religion is being forced on another.

And as long as abortion is legal…the secular pro-choice viewpoint is being forced on me. But I don’t accuse them of being unfair of using that “force”. I just force back. That’s how lobbying for changes in the law works. It’s a fight for morality…using force (not physical, but moral).

 

[gearhead]

The original one. The one before any man-made laws were ever written. I can see that this will be a huge disconnect for the discussion. If we start from the premise that marriage is a man-made relationship, all your points are valid, and I would freely admit that gays can get married if they want.

The converse of this is that banning same-sex couples from marriage is only correct if God exists and he instituted marriage in the manner you say he did.

I mean, if society itself is responsible for the creation of this man/woman relationship, how is it that they would be smarter about how it is to be structured than we are today? But the fact is that marriage is not a man-made relationship…it is God-made…in a very specific way (one man…one woman). It is sacred first…not civil first. The civil part of it is a reflection and defense of it’s sanctity, and the granting of it’s participants certain rights in acknowledgment of their unique oneness with each other. I offer that the founding fathers sought to preserve the divine sanctity by bringing it under the umbrella of legislation.

And I’d say that they simply recognized the civil institution of marriage that had existed in British statute law for centuries and British common law for centuries before that, which itself was recognized in the law for its significance in human affairs, not necessarily its “divine sanctity”.

No. What is “offensive” is the denigration of the sanctity of marriage, and it is a Catholic’s duty to defend this sanctity before God. Am I that ambiguous with my dialogue that you infer that the Church is offended by building families?

No, the ambiguity is between the way you describe the anti-same-sex marriage movement and its actual actions and effects.

Even with same-sex marriage illegal, Any same-sex couple can live together and call themselves spouses. Any same-sex couple could have a wedding in a gay-friendly church and declare themselves “married in the eyes of God”. The thing at issue here is the civil institution of marriage and the rights and benefits that go with it… rights and benefits that are specifically geared to supporting couples and families.

What “jurisdictions” are you referring to? Do they represent the Church proper, and Her teachings? I’m a pretty devout Catholic, and I’ve never been led to this sort of behavior toward homosexuals.

Ohio immediately comes to mind. IIRC, there are other states that have laws like this on the books, but I don’t remember them offhand.

The right to marry is a civil right…but it is only a civil right for one man and one woman, again because marriage is not originally defined by humans.

Regardless of whether God originally defined marriage or not, its meaning has changed countless times over the ages. The institution of marriage now is not the same one it was historically.

If you really do think that marriage was defined as “one man and one woman” by God, I suppose you’re disregarding the Bible, right? After all, the Old Testament specifically and explicitly allows for polygamy and this is never rescinded in the New Testament.

Homosexuals can easily lobby for all their civil rights without going after the institution of marriage.

Not really. If history has taught us anything, it’s that “separate but equal” is not equal.

On top of that, the word “marriage” does matter. If all the rights of marriage were granted to same-sex couples without them being married, this would affect their rights and priviliges abroad - for example, Israel will recognize foreign same-sex marriages, but not foreign civil unions.

Because you have a different take on what both “sanctity” means, and what “marriage” means.

Wait… are you married? Would your marriage really be less important to you if the gay couple down the street were married by a justice of the peace?

And yes, I guess we do have different definitions of “sanctity” and “marriage”… especially if marriage in your mind doesn’t lose any “sanctity” when an opposite-sex couple marry because the bride got knocked up, or when a gold-digger marries for an inheritance fortune, but becomes intolerably unsacred when two men or two women enter into a loving and committed union.

Their sense of vocation is not aligned properly to what the objectively true vocation is. Again, marriage is God’s relationship decree…not ours. I’ll grant you that many are looking beyond the civil rights part…but only in a very limited and distorted way. Even many Christians don’t fully understand the essence of marriage.

Apparently not, given the large number of Christians who seem quick to disregard the inherent link between marriage and love.

Marriage has become distorted in our world to be an institution that merely expresses outwardly the love and devotion two people have for one another. But that is a significant minimalization of what marriage is. It is that, but much much more. And to exclude the other parts of it’s inherent design (i.e. openness to procreation, one man/one woman), is to strip the concept of marriage of it’s very essence. There is no marriage-lite…it’s the full definition…or nothing.

So… does contraception damage the “sanctity” of marriage as well? What about non-sacramental marriage - how do you feel about civil marriage without a priest?

I’d just like to get a sense of what you’d like to ban next.

 

[SteveGC]

The converse of this is that banning same-sex couples from marriage is only correct if God exists and he instituted marriage in the manner you say he did.

No. I did not say that I would concede that gay marriage is “correct”. Only that I would say they can get married if they want. IOW, I wouldn’t vote against it if marriage were man-made. I should qualify that a little however. If God also did not declare that homosexual acts are sinful, nor that procreation was part of it, and of course if the Church did not have any doctrine regarding it, then I would not vote against gay marriage.

And I’d say that they simply recognized the civil institution of marriage that had existed in British statute law for centuries and British common law for centuries before that, which itself was recognized in the law for its significance in human affairs, not necessarily its “divine sanctity”.

Fair enough. I will concede your historical premise over my own. But I wouldn’t concede there was an absence of the drive to preserve the sanctity.

No, the ambiguity is between the way you describe the anti-same-sex marriage movement and its actual actions and effects.

I really don’t speak for the “movement”, nor am I an expert in its actual actions and effects.

Any same-sex couple can live together and call themselves spouses. Any same-sex couple could have a wedding in a gay-friendly church and declare themselves “married in the eyes of God”. The thing at issue here is the civil institution of marriage and the rights and benefits that go with it… rights and benefits that are specifically geared to supporting couples and families.

Sorry…I can’t separate civil from sacred. The civil part is man’s adaptation of the original sacred, which will exist forever unchanged. I only tolerate the civil definition right now because it does not distort the sacred. Granted, it does not fully and thoroughly define it, but it does not distort it. Civil must not distort the sacred. Gay marriage laws attempt to do that very thing. If that means gays don’t get the civil rights because they can’t get married, then so be it. I want them to have rights, but never at the expense of redefining marriage. And here’s why…it announces to the nation, (and for the U.S., that also means the entire world), that marriage is a relationship that is apart from God’s design of it.

Ohio immediately comes to mind.

. Ohio? You mean the state government? I thought you said there were Catholic entities involved.

Regardless of whether God originally defined marriage or not, its meaning has changed countless times over the ages. The institution of marriage now is not the same one it was historically.

Tragically, you are correct. But whether or not God originally defined it is far from being of no regard. It is the very essence of why Catholics defend it as they do. Because man has changed the meaning over time has no bearing on the Catholic position. The original design is what we are fighting to preserve.

I suppose you’re disregarding the Bible, right? After all, the Old Testament specifically and explicitly allows for polygamy and this is never rescinded in the New Testament.

I suppose I will just refer you to the appropriate chapter of the Catechism, instead of explaining in my own words what the Church teaches about marriage. It does a much better job than I do.

On top of that, the word “marriage” does matter. If all the rights of marriage were granted to same-sex couples without them being married, this would affect their rights and priviliges abroad - for example, Israel will recognize foreign same-sex marriages, but not foreign civil unions.

Again, sorry. Can’t budge on the concept. Marriage is sacred first. And really…even an allowance for a legal civil union of gays is somewhat inappropriate to me. And no, it’s not because I want to prohibit rights, it’s that I don’t want a national (if not, universal) proclamation that intimate gay relationships are normal. That will lead society down a dark path, IMO. Now, I wouldn’t travel to each local community that wanted to allow gay civil unions and grant them local (say city or county) rights, and try to stop that sort of thing. But on the national level, regarding federal law, I will always vote against it…because that sort of large scale proclamation is scandalous and threatens the morality on a universal scale. Have to vote against that no matter what.

…continued below…

 

[SteveGC]

Wait… are you married? Would your marriage really be less important to you if the gay couple down the street were married by a justice of the peace?

My marriage wouldn’t be, no. This is not about how gay marriage would impact me directly. This is about how gay marriage would impact the world, and its moral compass.

And yes, I guess we do have different definitions of “sanctity” and “marriage”… especially if marriage in your mind doesn’t lose any “sanctity” when an opposite-sex couple marry because the bride got knocked up, or when a gold-digger marries for an inheritance fortune, but becomes intolerably unsacred when two men or two women enter into a loving and committed union.

No…I do not discriminate against any aspect of abuse to the sanctity of marriage…all of those things are unacceptable to me…and as soon as people seek to adjust marriage to be legally defined as a relationship entered into by gold-diggers or after getting “knocked up”, you’ll see me on the front lines opposing that just as much as I oppose gay marriage. Which, by the way, is not even that passionate of an opposition. I’m far from a political activist. I speak out about it in my daily life when it comes up, and my political votes reflect that belief. Beyond that, I really am an amateur defender of the issue. I am, however, quite adept at explaining why the Church (and devout Catholics) are positioned the way they are about it.

Apparently not, given the large number of Christians who seem quick to disregard the inherent link between marriage and love.

Yes, this is tragic indeed.

So… does contraception damage the “sanctity” of marriage as well?

Yes, absolutely. And I speak out against contraception often. And yes, I’d love to have contraception be illegal.

What about non-sacramental marriage - how do you feel about civil marriage without a priest?

Not the worst thing. I myself was first married civilly. Then I converted to the faith and was remarried (to the same woman) in the Church. I don’t think civil marriage in and of itself scandalizes the essence of marriage to a degree anywhere near the other issues we’re discussing. But yes, I would hope all people would be married sacramentally.

I’d just like to get a sense of what you’d like to ban next.

Anything that significantly threatens morality on a large scale.

 

[crazzeto]

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?

I think if we remain clear about what the Church teaches on the subject… Well while we won’t be viewed as being friendly, we can certainly keep them from calling us bigots. If anyone is unsure of this, the teaching is:

God loves gay people and so should you. The gay act however is always sinful and should not be condoned.

I know it may sound like small comfort to someone looking for support on the gay marriage issue, but the fact is they can’t accuse our Church of teaching haterade and intolarance towards gay people. Because nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[almostatheist]

But if an intersex person physically and legally identifies as male and would want to marry a male then that would be unacceptable for the Catholic Church as it would be same sex would it not?

So, by the same logic… if say, a man identifies himself as a woman, is attracted to men, and gets a sex change; can he(she) marry a man?

 

[FilAmLapsed]

First and foremost, I know people who disagree with same sex marriage. Growing up with Filipinos and many are very conservative regarding social issues. I don’t hold that against him/her. However, I don’t force those who disagree to agree with me and vice versa. Marriage in my opinion, should be meant for commited, loving adult HUMAN BEING couples. Whether they are opposite or same gender, if they are loyal and love each other dearly, allow them to marry.
Not all marriages have to be procreating. Once again, I know straight couples who CHOOSE NOT to have kids. There’s heterosexual couples who cannot conceive. Catholic (and possibly other) churches like to point to reproducing as a reason to disapprove same-sex unions. Why can straight couples be married when they CHOOSE NOT TO or CANNOT have kids? Adoptions, surrogates, insemination are always an option. BTW, there are kids all over the world who need parents. This world full of abandoned kids, adoption centers are already overcrowded. The human race is not going to die anytime soon I’m sure.
Heterosexual couples have taken marriage for granted, religious or civil, in my opinion. The Catholic and other churches’ idea of marriage * (aka one man and one woman) has ended up in annulment, divorce, or “legal separation” more than 50 percent of the time. I’m not saying gay or lesbian couples aren’t capable of doing that also.
I disagree with how churches won’t allow gay/lesbian couples to adopt kids. Their policy on who is eligible isn’t right. Each family is different and kids are raised well. Single parents, gay/lesbian parents, etc. To only permit straight couples or parents to adopt indicates the church(es) perceive(s) they are the only people capable of raising young ones well which i disagree.*

 

[Diane_Lynn]

But if an intersex person physically and legally identifies as male and would want to marry a male then that would be unacceptable for the Catholic Church as it would be same sex would it not?

I think you are missing the point. I don’t mean one who identifies as trans-gender (a grouping of confusing psychological elements) as you seem to be implying but an actual intersex with a genital ambiguity and/or traceable medical internal variable(s).
If the intersex has had clarifying surgery that identifies her as female and her birth certificate and baptismal certificate have been amended to denote the same then why should she not be legally able to marry a male?
If you compare apples to oranges, which you seem to be doing, that is not logic but a fuzzy hypothetical. What I might glean from your hypothesis could very well apply to a homosexual who cross-dresses, is attracted to men and has surgery so he might marry a man.