What is dissent on gay "marriage"?

[D0UBTFIRE]

I was reading a blog that made me wonder this question: at what point is a person considered to be dissenting on the issue of gay “marriage”?

Is it dissent if they believe that homosexual sex should NOT be outlawed?

Is it dissent if they think that same sex civil unions should be allowed, but not civil marriage?

Also, I can see a distinction between a passive “yeah, it’s okay if they allow that” vs an active “we should demand the rights of gays be protected”?

Is it dissent if they think that same sex civil marriage should be allowed? Again, same distinction of passive vs active.

Is it dissent if (say they’re American) they believe that the states should decide the issue vs the federal government?

Is it dissent if they think the government should NOT perform marriage, ever, so they don’t care about the issue of gay “marriage”?

Is it dissent if they believe that gay “marriage” ceremonies should be performed by priests?

Is it dissent if they distinguish between civil vs sacramental marriage, and support only civil marriage for gays?

Is it dissent if they disagree with the Church’s opinion on the political nature of this?

Please, some clarification. I personally lean towards the preference that the word “marriage” not be redefined in society, but considering it already has been redefined (widespread contraception and widespread divorce) and considering there is little respect for it (widespread pre-marital cohabitation) I think it’s illogical to deny gays the benefits of marriage (it’s not illogical in and of itself, it’s illogical in the current societal environment that we live). However, I rather it be called civil unions. And I don’t think they should have the right to adopt or to use artificial means of conception. I’m talking strictly about the government legally recognizing their relationship. I also think that clergy should never be forced to perform these ceremonies if it is against their Church’s teaching or their own conscience (for the non-Catholics that also object). These are just my opinions. I imagine that this is not the opinion of the majority of the Catholic clergy, but is disagreeing with opinions the same as dissent? I am under the impression that unless once disagrees with the Church’s definition of sacramental marriage, one is not dissenting. Please correct me if I’m wrong…? Also, like I said, there is a distinction in my mind with someone who is passive vs active on the issue. For example, I think it is moral to vote for a politician that supports civil unions not because they support civil unions but because you like them for other reasons and you just don’t think the civil union issue is that important. On the other hand, I am unsure if it’s perfectly okay to vote for a politician BECAUSE they support civil unions. Even more confusion when it comes to gay “marriage”. If a person sees a huge distinction between civil and sacramental marriage, despite the fact that the bishops oppose civil gay marriage, is a person “dissenting” if they favor this? And vote for a politiican because they support this? And then, what if they don’t favor this personally, but don’t think the issue is as big as a deal as something else, and vote for a politician that happens to support gay “marriage” but not BECAUSE they support it? Hope all that made sense…thanks!

 

[Iron_Donkey]

It is dissent to claim that homosexual acts are morally permissible.

It is dissent to claim that two homosexuals living together is in any way a real marriage. (If “civil marriage” is taken to mean “what the government thinks is a marriage,” then of course such a thing could exist, but the government would be wrong. Marriage is an absolute thing that either exists between two people or does not, calling governmental recognition of, or assumption of where it does not exist, a separate type of marriage is misleading but sometimes necessary short hand.)

It is dissent to claim that gay “marriage” is some sort of right that must be protected - because doing so implicitly claims that gay marriage is actually a real thing.

It is dissent to claim that priests should perform such “marriages,” again because such marriages don’t exist.

For most of the rest, it probably depends on motivation. I would tend to think that given correct positions on the above, most (except perhaps “homosexual activity should not be outlawed”) are illogical and wrong and obviously so, but given that they are attempts at practical application and not matters of principle per se, I would be wary of going so far as labeling them dissent.

For example, you say that recognition of “gay marriage” (or calling it civil unions or whatever) makes sense in the framework of our culture, and so should be allowed. However, our the framework of our culture is wrong, and when it is wrong it should be a) prevented from getting more wrong, and b) corrected. The idea that because it makes sense given the wrong ideas and preferences that may people have it should be made legal is to throw in the towel and give up on our culture - we should support positions that are actually true and correct, not those that lots of other wrong people just happen to think are true and correct.