What Should We Do If Gay "Marriage" Becomes Legal?

[JimG]

Ultimately, if same sex marriage is uniformly recognized, those who do not recognize it will be vilified and criminalized. That is already happening.

Approving same sex marriage removes the very basis of marriage. Since same sex marriages can never be marital, it is an injustice to all marriage to call them non-marital unions marriages. But those in real marriages will have to accept the same word which will be used to apply to pretend marriages.

It is like redefining the word “triangle” as meaning a geometrical figure that has three sides, but sometimes has four sides, or six, or however many you wish. We do not wish to discriminate but have geometry equality. Trouble is, the word is then meaningless.

Ultimately, the law will require that we comply or face severe sanctions. We will have to apostasize, rejecting the truth, or be civilly and criminally persecuted.

 

[DexUK]

The Catholic Church doesn’t recognise the validity of a civil marriage procured by two Catholics if they don’t also conduct a Church wedding as well.

Civil Marriage is already separate and different to a Church Marriage and not automatically deemed valid.

Therefore, it’s hardly going affect any sacramental marriage if someone else procures a civil-only marriage.

It is a fact that there are already a myriad different ways in which people can join themselves to other people (think incorporated companies, limited liability partnerships, etc). If the State wishes to allow such joinings such that two people of the same gender may experience the same legal recognition as two people of opposite gender who marry each other, it’s no skin off my nose.

What should we do if gay (civil) marriage becomes legal?

Absolutely nothing. We don’t have a right to force our morals upon other people who don’t share them. Sacramental marriage remains ‘ours’ to define as we wish, as it always has. If our sacramental marriage is sufficiently attractive then people will avail themselves of it if they are so disposed. We can’t, shouldn’t and mustn’t require other people to think or believe as we do though. The law does not exist for that purpose, and certainly it does not in the USA.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The Catholic Church doesn’t recognise the validity of a civil marriage procured by two Catholics if they don’t also conduct a Church wedding as well.

Civil Marriage is already separate and different to a Church Marriage and not automatically deemed valid.

Therefore, it’s hardly going affect any sacramental marriage if someone else procures a civil-only marriage.

It is a fact that there are already a myriad different ways in which people can join themselves to other people (think incorporated companies, limited liability partnerships, etc). If the State wishes to allow such joinings such that two people of the same gender may experience the same legal recognition as two people of opposite gender who marry each other, it’s no skin off my nose.

What should we do if gay (civil) marriage becomes legal?

Absolutely nothing. We don’t have a right to force our morals upon other people who don’t share them. Sacramental marriage remains ‘ours’ to define as we wish, as it always has. If our sacramental marriage is sufficiently attractive then people will avail themselves of it if they are so disposed. We can’t, shouldn’t and mustn’t require other people to think or believe as we do though. The law does not exist for that purpose, and certainly it does not in the USA.

As several have pointed out to you elsewhere, your position on civil gay ‘marriage’ is not Catholic, and not aligned with the teaching and values taught by the faith.

It is evident you disregard the counsel of the current Pope, inconsistent with the esteem you seem to hold for him basing on your signature, and the bishops and leaders of the faith.

You serve as a good mouthpiece for and defender of civil gay ‘marriage’, failing to acknowledge the interest of children and the future generation, not to mention the consequent erosion of religious liberty of Catholics and other faiths that support traditional marriage and oppose legalization of gay ‘marriage’.

Begetting and raising children is not just the desired end of sacramental marriages; a good many are brought about in non-sacramental and civil natural partnerships of a man and a woman, notwithstanding failed relationships and those that are intentionally, accidentally, or by virtue of natural old age rendered infertile.

Civil gay ‘marriage’ enshrined in law is not benign as you and advocates for it portray.

It is shortsighted to believe that Catholics are imposing their morals to non-Catholics in maintaining that traditional marriage is best protected and expanding or including same sex unions as marriage promotes special interests against the common good. The Catholic Church regards a non-sacramental marriage between a man and a woman as a natural marriage.

If any group will be imposed upon, it will be Catholics and those defending the natural family. As law is instructive, indoctrination of children in schools, expressed disagreement with homosexual behavior, ‘marriage’ and adoption of kids by same sex couples will be disallowed, suppressed. Erosion of individual and parental rights of a great part of society would be inevitable. Against Catholic teaching and deeply held values, children in greater numbers will be placed for adoption in same sex homes. This is freedom? Think hard, Dex.

Efforts in opposition to uniform legalized gay ‘marriage’ may very well fail as did efforts against laws that were passed without thought to unintended negative social consequences, like effective abortion on demand and no-fault divorce.

It is truly sad when Catholics serve as enablers.
,

 

[fix]

The Catholic Church doesn’t recognise the validity of a civil marriage procured by two Catholics if they don’t also conduct a Church wedding as well.

Civil Marriage is already separate and different to a Church Marriage and not automatically deemed valid.

Therefore, it’s hardly going affect any sacramental marriage if someone else procures a civil-only marriage.

It is a fact that there are already a myriad different ways in which people can join themselves to other people (think incorporated companies, limited liability partnerships, etc). If the State wishes to allow such joinings such that two people of the same gender may experience the same legal recognition as two people of opposite gender who marry each other, it’s no skin off my nose.

What should we do if gay (civil) marriage becomes legal?

Absolutely nothing. We don’t have a right to force our morals upon other people who don’t share them. Sacramental marriage remains ‘ours’ to define as we wish, as it always has. If our sacramental marriage is sufficiently attractive then people will avail themselves of it if they are so disposed. We can’t, shouldn’t and mustn’t require other people to think or believe as we do though. The law does not exist for that purpose, and certainly it does not in the USA.

The Church disagrees with you.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Ultimately, if same sex marriage is uniformly recognized, those who do not recognize it will be vilified and criminalized. That is already happening.

Approving same sex marriage removes the very basis of marriage. Since same sex marriages can never be marital, it is an injustice to all marriage to call them non-marital unions marriages. But those in real marriages will have to accept the same word which will be used to apply to pretend marriages.

It is like redefining the word “triangle” as meaning a geometrical figure that has three sides, but sometimes has four sides, or six, or however many you wish. We do not wish to discriminate but have geometry equality. Trouble is, the word is then meaningless.

Ultimately, the law will require that we comply or face severe sanctions. We will have to apostasize, rejecting the truth, or be civilly and criminally persecuted.

All you have to do is recognize they are legally married. Like you would a Mormon or Muslim man married to several women or any secular guy on his 3rd or 4th wife after as many divorces.

I don’t see the problem, other than personal prejudices. Prejudices are fine, we all have them, I’m not to fond of people that murder children, that’s a prejudice. But the law may state certain classes of people are protected from certain kinds of discrimination in the public sphere, such as you may be sued for not renting a motel room to some Protestant drunk that you personally know of, who is on his 5th wife after several divorces. Likewise, you may have to rent a room to the gay married couple. No one is asking you to make a Methodist minister Pope or recognize gay marriage as metaphysically sacramental.

 

[JimG]

All you have to do is recognize they are legally married. Like you would a Mormon or Muslim man married to several women or any secular guy on his 3rd or 4th wife after as many divorces.

I don’t see the problem, other than personal prejudices. Prejudices are fine, we all have them, I’m not to fond of people that murder children, that’s a prejudice. But the law may state certain classes of people are protected from certain kinds of discrimination in the public sphere, such as you may be sued for not renting a motel room to some Protestant drunk that you personally know of, who is on his 5th wife after several divorces. Likewise, you may have to rent a room to the gay married couple. No one is asking you to make a Methodist minister Pope or recognize gay marriage as metaphysically sacramental.

All Catholics will need to do is reject Catholicism in favor of the state religion of secularism. And many will. Apostasy is so much easier than adhering to the faith in difficult times.

They will need to pretend that same sex unions are the same as marriage, when they are not. But their children will be taught the state doctrine in state schools. They will be taught that family does not mean mom, dad, and kids; that if their parents think that, they must be bigots and homophobes.

Their employment will be at risk. As in the HHS mandate, there will be penalties for non-acceptance of the state religion. There will be more lawsuits, and civil and criminal penaties for those who do not recognize same sex ‘marriage’ as a matter of conscience.

But that, of course, is only the personal stuff. If marriage can mean anything, marriage will become less common, as it has in Sweden. Cohabitation will become more common. Children, who naturally value family ties, who value moms and dads, will be cut adrift, as they already have been in so many ways.

I expect that the decline of marriage will lead to continuing decline in national fertility rates, adversely affecting social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

I’ve said it before. I can’t blame the whole disaster on same sex marriage. The attack on marriage started with contraception, continued with no fault divorce, fornication, abortion, adultery, infidelity, impermanent families.

It’s just that recognizing non-marital unions as ‘marriage’ will only make things worse.

 

[CaliLobo]

Nothing changes,huh:

"Just last year, two women filed a complaint in New Jersey because they were denied use of a pavilion for their civil union ceremony. The pavilion was owned by a Methodist ministry. It had been rented out for marriages, but the ministry refused to rent it for civil unions because it is a religious structure, and civil unions are not recognized in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline. Due to the ministry’s refusal to rent it for the lesbian ceremony, New Jersey revoked its tax-free status.

The Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local Young MENS Christian Association in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend “family membership” privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont. Accordingly, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as “families” for membership purposes, or lose over $100,000 in government support.

Perhaps the most notorious example of a state forcing its view on a church agency comes from Massachusetts, where Boston Catholic Charities ran an adoption agency that had been placing children with families for over 100 years. In 2006, Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley announced that the agency would abandon its founding mission rather than submit to a state law requiring it to place children with homosexual couples. (A Vatican document from 2003 described gay adoptions as ''gravely immoral.")"

And what’s wrong with this? Businesses and organizations that promote hate by excluding gays should be punished by our culture and our law.

JimG:

All Catholics will need to do is reject Catholicism in favor of the state religion of secularism. And many will. Apostasy is so much easier than adhering to the faith in difficult times.

They will need to pretend that same sex unions are the same as marriage, when they are not. But their children will be taught the state doctrine in state schools. They will be taught that family does not mean mom, dad, and kids; that if their parents think that, they must be bigots and homophobes.

Their employment will be at risk. As in the HHS mandate, there will be penalties for non-acceptance of the state religion. There will be more lawsuits, and civil and criminal penaties for those who do not recognize same sex ‘marriage’ as a matter of conscience.

But that, of course, is only the personal stuff. If marriage can mean anything, marriage will become less common, as it has in Sweden. Cohabitation will become more common. Children, who naturally value family ties, who value moms and dads, will be cut adrift, as they already have been in so many ways.

I expect that the decline of marriage will lead to continuing decline in national fertility rates, adversely affecting social programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

I’ve said it before. I can’t blame the whole disaster on same sex marriage. The attack on marriage started with contraception, continued with no fault divorce, fornication, abortion, adultery, infidelity, impermanent families.

It’s just that recognizing non-marital unions as ‘marriage’ will only make things worse.

Make things worse? That’s just fearmongering. In Reformed Protestantism, we believe that those who will fall away were never true believers to begin with. Those that will leave Catholicism were never true Catholics anyway.

How do you know that cohabitation without marriage is worse for society than marriage? Look at how many births there are out of wedlock. Marriage wasn’t necessary for those births.

Once again, businesses who promote hate should be punished by law.

stewstew03:

Paedophilia and zoophilia advocacy groups claim that:

They promote the well-being of the children/animals;
What they advocate is legitimate, has been around for centuries and is found across cultures;
What they do can be beneficial for children/animals;
People of all stripes should be free to practice their chosen activity;
The legal system unjustly discriminates against them;
Their chosen activity is not really 'sex' because it's not procreative intercourse, and so it's misunderstood in a society that persecutes them and labels them as "evil sinners."

The difference is that pedophilia and zoophilia are crimes with victims that cannot fully give consent. SSM is between consenting adults.

 

[CaliLobo]

Yes, let’s celebrate the ongoing destruction of the only institution that unites children to their natural parents. Hooray.

The only institution? Did marriage unite children born out of wedlock to their natural parents?

Marriage is not about the privacy of the bedroom. It is about public perception. The Courts have long ago declared the government’s inability to intrude into private sexual affairs. Again, the argument for gay marriage is muddled and confused here.

Privacy and marriage are both fundamental rights in constitutional law. Your point is?

I don’t think we need to wait for national acceptance of gay marriage to express such a sentiment. As a Catholic, I understand we are called to love our neighbor. That would include people who self-identify as “gay.”

So if Catholic people are so loving, then why does the Catholic Church continue to hold onto its archaic position against gay marriage rights? Where does this position come from?
**
It doesn’t come from the Bible. No, it can only come from the tradition of oppression and hate that it has shown throughout its history in Europe and Latin America.

It is hate and bigotry, just like discrimination against racial minorities is.**

I agree that the US should be an example of tolerance and equal rights under the law. I don’t feel that marriage must be redefined to reach that goal with respect to homosexual couples. I also think that your comment that Jesus would never want “gay people” to “suffer for the way God created them” is an unproven hypothesis that, at best, oversimplifies a very complex pattern of sexual development. What I mean to say, is that it’s not clear whether people who self-identify as “gay” were “made” that way. Moreover, it’s not clear at all that God would be “happy” with anyone’s decision to self-identify as “gay” - which implies one’s acceptance of objectively immoral conduct.

I’m not saying that gay sex is not a sin. But what the rest of the world is saying, correctly, is that morality cannot be legislated, and it is hatemongering to restrict the right to marry for gays. Recognize that science has shown that it is normal for about 2-5% of humans to be gay, and that gay behavior is found in hundreds of species.

Protestants recognize this, and that is why they have gradually backed off from their former anti-gay stance. They have recognized that the Bible does not say anything about the issue politically, and that it is open to interpretation. At the same time, they have gone back to the basics and emphasized preaching the Gospel over legislating morality. That is why Protestantism is still growing in the West, while Catholicism fades, because Protestantism adapts itself to modern culture.

The Catholic Church’s response to recognition of gay marriage rights should be to preach the Gospel and quit trying to legislate morality futilely.

 

[JimG]

How do you know that cohabitation without marriage is worse for society than marriage? Look at how many births there are out of wedlock. Marriage wasn’t necessary for those births.

I’m sorry, I almost laughed out loud at this. Do you really believe that fornication is better for society than marriage? You really think it’s better to purposely deprive children of a mom and a dad?

The is what Jesus had to say: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and join to his wife; And they two shall be one flesh: so then they are no more two, but one flesh. …”

I really don’t think he approved of fornication, adultery, divorce, or even same sex ‘marriage.’

But as to the social consequences of sexual licentiousness, I refer you to Mary Eberstadt’s study of the results of the sexual revolution: “Adam and Eve After The Pill.” The documented results have been bad indeed.

Also, you might want to study Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization,” as to the effects of family instability on civilizations.

 

[CaliLobo]

I’m sorry, I almost laughed out loud at this. Do you really believe that fornication is better for society than marriage? You really think it’s better to purposely deprive children of a mom and a dad?

The is what Jesus had to say: “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and join to his wife; And they two shall be one flesh: so then they are no more two, but one flesh. …”

I really don’t think he approved of fornication, adultery, divorce, or even same sex ‘marriage.’

But as to the social consequences of sexual licentiousness, I refer you to Mary Eberstadt’s study of the results of the sexual revolution: “Adam and Eve After The Pill.” The documented results have been bad indeed.

Also, you might want to study Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization,” as to the effects of family instability on civilizations.

Amazing. Because Sweden, and the other European countries that have adopted SSM, have better standards of living than America–less crime, better healthcare, better education, better environmental standards, more public transit, bigger social safety net, lesser military spending, less processed **** food…

Fornication and adultery have always been around. Humans have done just fine. Let the one that hasn’t sinned in this area throw the first stone. Christian or not, it’s a natural desire to wanna test drive the car before you buy it.

Divorce? No-fault divorce has been a godsend for women, to help prevent oppression against women in hurtful marriages. It has forced men to step it up and be better husbands.

Contraception? Again, it has helped women avoid the impact of pregnancy on their health, economy, careers, and bodies. It is effective pain medication for their cycles, which as a man, I will not dare to make an estimation on how painful and burdensome it is.

So back to the main point… Why can’t the Catholic Church recognize what are clearly CIVIL RIGHTS for gays?? What is the Catholic Church so afraid of?

Once again, all I can conclude that it is coming from a position of historic hatred and oppression.

 

[SachieWhitby]

My only concern here is what’s going to happen when Catholic priests [and even reverends/whatever for other faiths] find a same-sex couple wanting to get married in their church, temple, whatever and find that themselves being sued when they try to decline.

People in secular jobs are going to just have to suck-it-up and accept that they’ll be forced to provide services to same sex couples if they don’t want to be sued and lose their job/income over it. I have the luxury with my job in that I work with senior citizens and can refuse to work with clients that I don’t want to. For example, there was a clothing-optional client that I was offered and declined because I don’t want to look at clothing-optional people while they’re being clothing-optional. Sure my declining the clothing-optional client could be labeled as discriminatory, but I’m in no danger of being sued over it. Not everyone is going to be so fortunate and I think that some people in this thread [such as the protestants] should be taking a good look at what their own brand of Christianity says about homosexual behavior and if it is okay to provide services that would support it as well as how it might effect them plus other members of their protestant friends/family.

 

[CaliLobo]

My only concern here is what’s going to happen when Catholic priests [and even reverends/whatever for other faiths] find a same-sex couple wanting to get married in their church, temple, whatever and find that themselves being sued when they try to decline.

People in secular jobs are going to just have to suck-it-up and accept that they’ll be forced to provide services to same sex couples if they don’t want to be sued and lose their job/income over it. I have the luxury with my job in that I work with senior citizens and can refuse to work with clients that I don’t want to. For example, there was a clothing-optional client that I was offered and declined because I don’t want to look at clothing-optional people while they’re being clothing-optional. Sure my declining the clothing-optional client could be labeled as discriminatory, but I’m in no danger of being sued over it. Not everyone is going to be so fortunate and I think that some people in this thread [such as the protestants] should be taking a good look at what their own brand of Christianity says about homosexual behavior and if it is okay to provide services that would support it as well as how it might effect them plus other members of their protestant friends/family.

I’ve just finished helping a gay client last month, and I have no qualms about it, because his constitutional rights to a lawyer, speedy jury trial, to remain silent, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses were at stake.

What’s such a big moral issue about helping a gay person? If anything, its Christlike compassion and love to our neighbor that requires us to help a gay client.

 

[SachieWhitby]

I’ve just finished helping a gay client last month, and I have no qualms about it, because his constitutional rights to a lawyer, speedy jury trial, to remain silent, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses were at stake.

What’s such a big moral issue about helping a gay person? If anything, its Christlike compassion and love to our neighbor that requires us to help a gay client.

Absolutely nothing… However if your religion does not recognize same-sex marriage, then it is going to be an issue for members of the clergy of said religion when they find themselves being sued for refusing to allow same-sex couples to be married in their churches.

Some of us [myself being one of them] are not going to be impacted directly at all. There’s nothing wrong with providing in-home care to gay seniors just as there’s no problem giving them legal assistance. In either case, we’re not doing anything that that the church would disapprove of, like officiating a gay wedding ceremony.

 

[JimG]

I’ve just finished helping a gay client last month, and I have no qualms about it, because his constitutional rights to a lawyer, speedy jury trial, to remain silent, and to confront and cross-examine witnesses were at stake.

What’s such a big moral issue about helping a gay person? If anything, its Christlike compassion and love to our neighbor that requires us to help a gay client.

Indeed, the Catholic Missionaries of Charity have been one of the prime groups caring for the sick, many of whom happen to be gay. There is nothing whatever wrong with helping anyone. But they didn’t facilitate gay weddings. They didn’t drive women to abortion clinics. They didn’t facilitate adulterous affairs. That would have been cooperating with evil. One can always help. One cannot enable immoral action.

 

[JimG]

If fornication, divorce, adultery, and contraception are such wonderful benefits, along with gay marriage, then I suppose we must truly be headed for utopia.

 

[TimeEntrance]

All Catholics will need to do is reject Catholicism in favor of the state religion of secularism. And many will. Apostasy is so much easier than adhering to the faith in difficult times.

I don’t think it’s apostasy if a Catholic is Catholic while Muslims and Mormons around him or her marry several women and the Protestant divorces and remarries because his wife spends too much money and he no longer favors her looks.

It’s not apostasy if gay people are married in the United States in the same cities Catholics live in.

I’ve said it before. I can’t blame the whole disaster on same sex marriage. The attack on marriage started with contraception, continued with no fault divorce, fornication, abortion, adultery, infidelity, impermanent families.

It’s just that recognizing non-marital unions as ‘marriage’ will only make things worse.

Maybe so. If that does end up being the case the United States and the West will just have to learn from the consequences of what they wanted. By “they” I mean the majority in a given state that vote for gay marriage (or whatever else).

 

[stewstew03]

…
The difference is that pedophilia and zoophilia are crimes with victims that cannot fully give consent. SSM is between consenting adults.

They are crimes simply because we, as a society, have decided they are crimes. In some cultures/societies pedophilia is not a crime (and also not considered “sex”).

In terms of animals (domestic or agricultural) - they also do not offer their consent to be caged, or to be confined to a home, or to be slaughtered for food, etc. Why is it okay for a farmer to slice a goat’s jugular and bleed it out, but not okay for that farmer to have “relations” with the goat? Wouldn’t the goat prefer the latter rather than the former?

And what about incest? Polygamy? What about “equal rights” for all who want to engage in love, however “perverted” you think it might be?

.

 

[JimG]

I don’t think it’s apostasy if a Catholic is Catholic while Muslims and Mormons around him or her marry several women and the Protestant divorces and remarries because his wife spends too much money and he no longer favors her looks.

It’s not apostasy if gay people are married in the United States in the same cities Catholics live in.

Maybe so. If that does end up being the case the United States and the West will just have to learn from the consequences of what they wanted. By “they” I mean the majority in a given state that vote for gay marriage (or whatever else).

When Catholic hospital have to close down because they refuse to provide contraception and abortion, or refuse to recognize same sex ‘marriage,’ they will have chosen faithfulness over apostasy.

When Catholic adoptions agencies have to close down because they cannot in conscience provide children to same sex couples, they will have chosen faithfulness over apostasy. The public and the children will be the losers.

When a Catholic business has to close down because it refuses to follow the HHS mandate or refuses to cooperate in assisting at same sex weddings, it will have chosen faithfulness over apostasy.

When Catholic parents are fined or sued because they refuses to allow their child to be indoctrinated into accepting same sex marriage as taught in the public school, they will have chosen faithfulness over apostasy.

Or, they could all choose apostasy. Reject the Faith because that is what the government demands.

 

[DexUK]

You’re worried that Catholic hospitals will be forced to close down because they don’t recognise gay marriage?

Well, I would have thought that no matter what the religious opinions of the hospital are (can hospitals have opinions per se?) it seems remarkably churlish to seek to deny a patient the right to have his or her loved ones present during illnesses and end-of-life situations.

The hospital’s management can choose to have as many opinions as they like about the validity of gay marriage, but let’s be blunt: no gay patient of theirs is going to be getting jiggy with their paramour on the hospital bed. They will have simply availed themselves of a simple legal way of identifying who their next of kin is and who has the right to make decisions about treatment if they themselves can’t. They can do that now, in some places, by means of legal arrangements so what problem the hospital can possibly have with that is beyond me.

Any hospital, Catholic or otherwise, that refuses to provide treatment or deal with legally defined next of kin on the basis that their patient is in a civil same-sex marriage deserves to be shut down on the basis of the fact that they really ought to spend the resulting free time reading up on the Good Samaritan and the reason why that story was so shocking to Jews of the time…

 

[fix]

The gay apologists make funny arguments.