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

[stewstew03]

Those laws are already not enforced anyway, much like laws against fornication which are still on the books.

That’s not true at all - look up the tragic case of Muth v. Frank out of Wisconsin.

 

[stewstew03]

Those laws are already not enforced anyway, much like laws against fornication which are still on the books.

Besides - sodomy laws were essentially unenforceable but what happened in Lawrence v Texas?

 

[whos_that_kid]

I’m in Minnesota right now and as you all know, gay marriage became legal today. Am I going to go to hell for being in a state that allows this type of behavior?

 

[blaskoman]

That’s your 1st reply on this forum??!! haven’t seen many trolls here lately, but its inevitable

 

[fix]

Sorry I was busy with work but here is my reply:

I won’t fall into your trap. Technically, what two consenting adults do is fine. However, the public cultural backlash would be so great as to deter that kind of behavior. If the possibility of deformed children isn’t already.

What children come from a father and son marrying?

How is it based on relativism? How is it not based in Christ?

Your standard is your private opinion which is not truth.

It is not based in Christ because everything you wrote in contrary to the bible, Tradition, and the magisterium.

Once again, I’m not getting any Bible verses from you guys. Show me the Bible verse that says we must discriminate against gays when it comes to human rights.

There is no discrimination against any human right here. None.

Show me the Bible verse that says we can’t let gays adopt. Show me the Bible verse that says that the **government **must stop women from exercising the civil right to abortion.

Why do you want to see that in the bible? Is that your standard?

If Catholics shut down their hospitals and adoption agencies for this reason, it will only shrink the ministry and help further the decline of the Catholic Church into nonexistence. There are already enough reasons to reject the Catholic Church, its lack of relevance in modern society being one of them.

Oh yes, relevance. That is the key to salvation.

So where do these Catholic positions come from? They don’t come from the Bible; instead they come from the historic promulgation of oppressive policies of the Catholic Church in the name of “helping others to holiness”.

Stop promulgating oppression. Stop trying to legislate morality. You really want to force people by law to be Catholic? That’s not a relationship with God; that is slavery.

Separation of church and state is beneficial for Catholics and the rest of society.

Stick to preaching the Gospel and cultivating individual relationships with Jesus Christ. Protestants have realized this and that is why they are growing while Catholics are shrinking. I’m not saying this to proselytize; I’m saying this because isn’t this something they’re doing right and that Catholics are doing wrong?

This is the advice from someone who uses moral relativism as the standard. Why on earth would anyone accept such advice?

 

[PetrusRomanus]

What children come from a father and son marrying?

Your standard is your private opinion which is not truth.

It is not based in Christ because everything you wrote in contrary to the bible, Tradition, and the magisterium.

There is no discrimination against any human right here. None.

Why do you want to see that in the bible? Is that your standard?

Oh yes, relevance. That is the key to salvation.

This is the advice from someone who uses moral relativism as the standard. Why on earth would anyone accept such advice?

Not only what you said, but you can show him in the Bible where it speaks out against gay adoption and abortion.

Gay adoption:

“Whoever causes these little ones to stumble, it would be better if a milstone were tied around his neck and thrown into the sea”

Abortion:

“Thou shall not kill”

 

[fix]

Not only what you said, but you can show him in the Bible where it speaks out against gay adoption and abortion.

Gay adoption:

“Whoever causes these little ones to stumble, it would be better if a milstone were tied around his neck and thrown into the sea”

Abortion:

“Thou shall not kill”

Yes, the entire proposition is absurd on many levels.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

me the verse, baby, show me the verse.

The only verses that apply with respect to gays is to love your neighbor as you love yourself (Mark 12:31), and the Golden Rule of Matthew 7:12.

Its precisely because I lovethem as myself that I oppose their behavior. I do not wish to enter Hell, and so I do not wish for them to enter it either.

As for verses, quite blatantly its one of the commandments. Thou shall not commit adultery. Jesus is quite obviously against fornication. And since gays cant ever be married in the eyes of Our Lord, their actions constitute fornication and sodomy and never proper sexual intercourse that is ordered towards life that would allow a marriage to ever take place.

Furthermore, you can quite easily see what the Catechism has to say on the matter (Id post it but Im typing this through my phone).

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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

What? This doesn’t even makes sense, unless you are asking whether marriage of two persons would unite them to their biological children that pre-dated the marriage ceremony. And the answer to that is… Yes, it would be an institution that unites the two of them to their progeny.

CaliLobo:

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

My point was that the weak argument for gay marriage that stems from the right of privacy misses the mark primarily because marriage is a public act. I would acknowledge that what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of the bedroom is protected under the Constitutional righ to privacy (even if it is immoral). But it does not follow that because two men, or two women, engage in private sexual acts that they therefore should be allowed to get married.

CaliLobo:

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.**

This comment assumes so many (false) facts that it’s hard to know where to begin. But I’ll try. First, the position of the Church is not “archaic.” The position of the church is based in truths from nature which do not change. It takes a man and a woman to have a baby. It is important to have a social structure that recognizes and unites that man and that woman to each other, and to the children they bring into the world. That social structure is marriage. Marriage - in this sense - has no real application to a same sex couple. Not because the same sex couple is “gay” or “icky” or “damned to hell” or “sinning” but because the nature of what marriage is simply does not apply to their relationship. This relationship comes from God, and it is supported by Christ’s teaching on marriage, but the bible alone is not the sole basis for challenging the move to re-define marriage so that it is completely devoid of its original role - i.e. uniting parents to their children.
CaliLobao:

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.

Morality CAN be legislated, but your argument is really beside the point. I’m not saying that people who self-identify as gay should be persecuted. All I’m saying, and all the Church is saying, is leave marriage the way it is (an institution that unites man and woman to any children they may produce.) Don’t completely re-define marriage out of some misguided attempt to overcome past injustices, or show compassion for a group of people that - admittedly - have suffered unfair treatment at the hands of all types of societies and cultures. Doing so, so that it amounts to just a recognition of two people who want to live together and share bank accounts, completely guts the original purpose behind the institution.

CaliLobo:

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.

First, it does not necessarily follow that if one is against the redefinition of marriage, that one is anti-gay. That’s your prejudice showing, and not mine. The only marriages that the bible recognizes is a marriage that includes male and female. If you think the bible supports gay marriage, please cite the chapter and verse that says “thumbs up” to gay marriage. (It does not exist) The fact that some protestant denominations are caving in to political and social pressure does not support a finding that their weakness amounts to an acceptance of “truth.”

CaliLobo:

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

Again, it’s not about morality. It’s about protecting the institution of marriage. It’s not really an anti-gay issue at all. It’s about fighting to make sure that marriage remains all about family.

Peace,
Robert

 

[CaliLobo]

There is no discrimination against any human right here. None.

“The fight against homophobia is a core part of the broader battle for human rights for all,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in his remarks to the International Forum on the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO), held in The Hague, the Netherlands.

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights promises a world that is free and equal, and we will only honour that promise if everyone – without exception – enjoys the protection they deserve.”

un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=44931&Cr=discrimination&Cr1=#.UZeeBUqnKSo

fix:

Your standard is your private opinion which is not truth.

It is not based in Christ because everything you wrote in contrary to the bible, Tradition, and the magisterium.

Why do you want to see that in the bible? Is that your standard?

It’s irrelevant what I want to see in the Bible. The fact remains that there’s nothing in the Bible that forbids recognition of gay marriage rights. Tradition alone doesn’t save anyone. The only thing that fuels the Vatican position is its own Magisterium. But what is that Magisterium based on??

Therefore, this issue is open to interpretation.

fix:

Oh yes, relevance. That is the key to salvation.

Relevance is not the key, but one of the keys to reaching the hearts of modern people with the Gospel. But Catholic-style oppression is NOT the key to salvation. That is why people fall away.

fix:

This is the advice from someone who uses moral relativism as the standard. Why on earth would anyone accept such advice?

The fact remains that there’s nothing in the Bible that forbids recognition of gay marriage rights. Tradition alone doesn’t save anyone. The only thing that fuels the Vatican position is its own Magisterium. But what is that Magisterium based on??

 

[CaliLobo]

Not only what you said, but you can show him in the Bible where it speaks out against gay adoption and abortion.

Gay adoption:

“Whoever causes these little ones to stumble, it would be better if a milstone were tied around his neck and thrown into the sea”

Abortion:

“Thou shall not kill”

Gay adoption:
A search on Google for “Bible verses on adoption” leads to: voices.yahoo.com/bible-verses-adoption-10-amazing-scriptures-7633608.html

Here are some verses it lists:

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. (James 1:27)

And anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf is welcoming me. (Matt. 18:5)

Father to the fatherless, defender of widows-
this is God, whose dwelling is holy.
God places the lonely in families;
he sets the prisoners free and gives them joy.
But he makes the rebellious live in a sun-scorched land. (Psalm 68:5-6)

Where is the discrimination against gay adoptions here??? If anything, opposition to adoption of any kind is a sin against God.

Abortion:
Some translations say “Thou shall not kill,” but other translations say “thou shall not murder”.

Considering that God personally sanctioned war and killing of His enemies in the Old Testament, it can’t be true that all killing is a sin.

Therefore the Bible must be referring to murder. Murder has a special definition–a killing with malice aforethought. I don’t want to bore you with the breakdown of the law. But suffice it to say, there is no malice in abortion. Rather, it is a decision made after much thoughtful deliberation.

 

[CaliLobo]

What? This doesn’t even makes sense, unless you are asking whether marriage of two persons would unite them to their biological children that pre-dated the marriage ceremony. And the answer to that is… Yes, it would be an institution that unites the two of them to their progeny.

There are irresponsible married parents, and responsible unmarried parents. And there are adopted parents. Marriage has nothing to do with uniting children with their parents.

My point was that the weak argument for gay marriage that stems from the right of privacy misses the mark primarily because marriage is a public act. I would acknowledge that what two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of the bedroom is protected under the Constitutional righ to privacy (even if it is immoral). But it does not follow that because two men, or two women, engage in private sexual acts that they therefore should be allowed to get married.

Why doesn’t it follow?

This comment assumes so many (false) facts that it’s hard to know where to begin. But I’ll try. First, the position of the Church is not “archaic.” The position of the church is based in truths from nature which do not change. It takes a man and a woman to have a baby. It is important to have a social structure that recognizes and unites that man and that woman to each other, and to the children they bring into the world. That social structure is marriage. Marriage - in this sense - has no real application to a same sex couple. Not because the same sex couple is “gay” or “icky” or “damned to hell” or “sinning” but because the nature of what marriage is simply does not apply to their relationship. This relationship comes from God, and it is supported by Christ’s teaching on marriage, but the bible alone is not the sole basis for challenging the move to re-define marriage so that it is completely devoid of its original role - i.e. uniting parents to their children.

So where is your position on the civil right to marry based on? Once again, marriage has no correlation with uniting parents to their children (see above).

Please admit that gay people also raise children and therefore create family units, and therefore need legal protection.

Morality CAN be legislated, but your argument is really beside the point. I’m not saying that people who self-identify as gay should be persecuted. All I’m saying, and all the Church is saying, is leave marriage the way it is (an institution that unites man and woman to any children they may produce.) Don’t completely re-define marriage out of some misguided attempt to overcome past injustices, or show compassion for a group of people that - admittedly - have suffered unfair treatment at the hands of all types of societies and cultures. Doing so, so that it amounts to just a recognition of two people who want to live together and share bank accounts, completely guts the original purpose behind the institution.

Morality can be legislated, but it shouldn’t be, because that is tantamount to slavery and religious oppression. For gay people, it is about more that sharing bank accounts, it is about uniting gay parents with their children (to quote your logic).

Who cares about the original purpose behind the institution? How is that relevant to today?

First, it does not necessarily follow that if one is against the redefinition of marriage, that one is anti-gay. That’s your prejudice showing, and not mine. The only marriages that the bible recognizes is a marriage that includes male and female. If you think the bible supports gay marriage, please cite the chapter and verse that says “thumbs up” to gay marriage. (It does not exist) The fact that some protestant denominations are caving in to political and social pressure does not support a finding that their weakness amounts to an acceptance of “truth.”

My point exactly. Since there is no Bible verse in support of or opposition to the issue, we are free to interpret. However, the rebellion and hatred against the CC because of this issue is because the Vatican has wrong interpretation. No amount of papal infallibility will serve to make a wrong interpretation correct. Hatred of gays is not justified by papal infallibility.

Opposition to gay marriage rights is anti-gay, because by doing so you are saying that gays are not allowed to have all of the privileges and opportunities of life that straight people get. What is this discrimination based on, when we know that sexuality is not binary, but a continuum between straight and gay, and many straight-identifying people have experimented with gay experiences? This discrimination is arbitrary and unjust.

In addition, Protestants are not caving in to anything. They are merely realizing that the Bible says nothing on the issue.

There is no Bible verse that says we must oppose the civil rights of others. We have the right to our own beliefs. But civil rights issues affect all humans and therefore transcend religion.

 

[demol]

What do Catholics do on the marriage front if gay “marriage” becomes a legal reality in the United States?

What was expected of us when no-fault divorce was legalized? What was expected of us when slavery was still legal?

Do we protest and march?

Just curious what everyone else thinks.

You wake up the next day and worry about your own life and marriage.

 

[demol]

Jesus does not mention homosexuality. Not once. He does, however, admonish against adultery more than 20 times. Maybe we should be focusing on that threat…

 

[JimG]

Homosexuality in the New Testament:
catholic.com/quickquestions/a-family-member-argues-that-the-new-testament-doesnt-deal-with-the-issue-of-homosexua

Homosexuality in the bible:

Early Teachings on Homosexuality

 

[Reep]

Jesus does not mention homosexuality. Not once. He does, however, admonish against adultery more than 20 times. Maybe we should be focusing on that threat…

I hope–when you want to focus on adultery–you mean by right teaching and good example and not the criminal punishment of adulterers. That solution calls to mind that bloody-minded mob who were so focused on an adulteress they wanted to stone her. Jesus could have hammered that issued by acquiescing to her punishment, **but he saved her instead. **

As St. Augustine points out (here) we do not condone sinful behavior simply because we do not punish it officially. It is better to leave most such sins to God to handle in his own in his own time and limit the criminal law to the punishment of those who directly harm others.

Likewise, St Thomas Aquinas teaches:
Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.
The angelic doctor was so very libertarian when it comes to the criminal law.

 

[demol]

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.
,

You discuss children. In your opinion is it ok for a woman to marry if she is physically unable to conceive? I often read people advocating for traditional marriage over gay marriage based on the fact that only man and woman can conceive a child.

Additionally, studies have proven that children raised by gay couples do as well or better socially and scholastically.

 

[Personanongrata]

Women who have had hysterectomies should not be allowed to marry since they are physically not “open to life”. Sterile men – same thing. If this Catholic rule applies to one, then it applies to all. (Where is that sarcastic smiley face when you need it?)

 

[Corki]

Women who have had hysterectomies should not be allowed to marry since they are physically not “open to life”. Sterile men – same thing. If this Catholic rule applies to one, then it applies to all.

The teaching is not that each act be procreative. The teaching is that each act be ordered toward procreation. Any man-woman fully consumated act of sexual intercourse is ordered toward procreation regardless of the ferltility of either spouse.

 

[demol]

Homosexuality in the New Testament:
catholic.com/quickquestions/a-family-member-argues-that-the-new-testament-doesnt-deal-with-the-issue-of-homosexua

Homosexuality in the bible:

Early Teachings on Homosexuality

I stated that Jesus does not mention homosexuality but does mention adultery. My point is the church (in my opinion) should be focusing more on divorce, an actual threat to traditional marriage. The ridiculous amount of money wasted fighting SSM when that money could be used to help the poor and needy.