What would happen if a gay marriage were performed in a catholic church?

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

But you are neither factually nor morally right. Such contempt for other cultures is appalling.

My goodness, you are easily appalled…

There were and there are uncivilized cultures in existence. That is a fact.

When I refer to an uncivilized culture as being uncivilized, morals have nothing to do with it.

You are welcome to try to prove it right. Merely asserting it does not make it true. But we have done this on other threads, it is not germane to this thread, there is another thread on this forum where you are already posting where it would fit far better, and unless you have finally come up with a good argument against at least one of the many examples I gave of historical same sex marriage I am unlikely to be interested.:nope:

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed that one. I wish I had seen it sooner. We could have settled this and got this subject out of the way.

I have seen that same list posted by other gay activists who try to present homosexuality as normal based on ancient or uncivilized cultures. The interesting thing about those studies of various tribes is that while homosexuality was accepted and same sex relationships were acknowledged…marriage (man and woman) was treated differently.
These tribes and cultures may have been uncivilized but they were not stupid. They knew that procreation was vital to the future of the tribe so they held man and woman marriage in higher esteem. It seems that every one of your studies fail to mention the fact that many of the cultures/tribes had different names for marriage as opposed to same sex relationships. In most cases a marriage was referred to as a “union that produces children” while a same sex affair was called something like “non productive”.

That elided part does nothing to change the fact that the root for ‘marriage’ referred to the civil union, not a sacrament. QED

LOL, Sacraments did not exist when the Romans devised the Latin language.

Marriage, or Matrimonium was a civil union of one man and one woman. No where in Roman law is a homosexual relationship or wedding referred to as Matrimonium.
Nero had lavish weddings whenever he “married” one of his male teenage lovers. But Roman law and society did not consider it to be Matrimonium.

 

[DrTaffy]

My goodness, you are easily appalled…

Or you don’t realise how appalling your attitude is.

There were and there are uncivilized cultures in existence. That is a fact.

That you brand (for example) the Native Americans as ‘uncivilised savages’ is bad enough, but it is more your attitude that this justifies completely ignoring their traditions and forcibly replacing them with your own that is appalling.

I would remind you that the forum rules require respect for other religions. Including the ‘uncivilised savages’ religions.

I have seen that same list posted by other gay activists who try to present homosexuality as normal based on ancient or uncivilized cultures. The interesting thing about those studies of various tribes is that while homosexuality was accepted and same sex relationships were acknowledged…marriage (man and woman) was treated differently.

Nope, I compiled that list and they are all civilisations where same sex unions were both recognised and called by the same term as heterosexual unions. For example, as quoted in that post:
Waldemar Bogoras, The Jesup North Pacific Expedition: The Chukchee 451 (Franz Boas ed., 1904-1909)

The marriage [between a soft man and his husband] is performed with the usual rites, and I must say that it forms a quite solid union, which often lasts till the death of one of the parties. The couple live much in the same way as do other people.

LOL, Sacraments did not exist when the Romans devised the Latin language.

Thank you for explicitly conceding the point again. So “marriage” does not originally refer to the sacrament, but to the state-defined legal arrangement.

Marriage, or Matrimonium was a civil union of one man and one woman. No where in Roman law is a homosexual relationship or wedding referred to as Matrimonium.
Nero had lavish weddings whenever he “married” one of his male teenage lovers. But Roman law and society did not consider it to be Matrimonium.

More unsupported assertion. Still irrelevant to the topic.

 

[kozlosap]

Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt View Post
Nice try Dr. but we are content with the traditional definition. YOU people are the ones who want to change the definition…it is up to YOU to come up with name to describe an un-traditional, unnatural, and unhealthy same sex relationship. How about “Rainbow Connection”?

“You People”!!! Really? You must mean those of us who don’t agree with your very narrow view of the world.

 

[clem456]

Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt View Post
Nice try Dr. but we are content with the traditional definition. YOU people are the ones who want to change the definition…it is up to YOU to come up with name to describe an un-traditional, unnatural, and unhealthy same sex relationship. How about “Rainbow Connection”?

“You People”!!! Really? You must mean those of us who don’t agree with your very narrow view of the world.

Insensitive speech noted.

What is it about the substance of what he says that you disagree with?

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please remember that charity is essential to our discussions here. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Or you don’t realise how appalling your attitude is.

That you brand (for example) the Native Americans as ‘uncivilised savages’ is bad enough, but it is more your attitude that this justifies completely ignoring their traditions and forcibly replacing them with your own that is appalling.

I would remind you that the forum rules require respect for other religions. Including the ‘uncivilised savages’ religions.

Did I mention ‘uncivilised savages’ religions? I hope not. Just for the record I have the utmost respect for uncivilized religions. Even the Aztecs. They required human sacrifice.
BTW. are they considered civilized?

Nope, I compiled that list and they are all civilisations where same sex unions were both recognised and called by the same term as heterosexual unions. For example, as quoted in that post:
Waldemar Bogoras, The Jesup North Pacific Expedition: The Chukchee 451 (Franz Boas ed., 1904-1909)

“Russians consider the Chukchi to be generally primitive, uncivilized and simple-minded, but clever in a naive kind of way.”

innamazing.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/citizens-of-russia/

Also…

In his book, Uncivilized Races Men All Countries World, Rev. J. G. Wood lists the Chukchee/Chukchi as primitive and uncivilized.

Thank you for explicitly conceding the point again. So “marriage” does not originally refer to the sacrament, but to the state-defined legal arrangement.

No. Remember what I did say. Marriage proceeded both the Church AND the state.
The Church NOR the state defined marriage. People were marrying and raising families long before a “state” or religion existed.

More unsupported assertion. Still irrelevant to the topic.

Supported, yes. Read Roman Law. Or Plato’s Symposium and the Law

I maintain that same sex unions were never recognized as marriages by any civilization with a written history.

This is relevant as long as you try to justify homosexual relations by claiming that civilized cultures recognized sex unions and called by the same term as heterosexual unions…then list a number of UN-civilized cultures as your support.

 

[DrTaffy]

Did I mention ‘uncivilised savages’ religions?

Their marriage customs were part of their religions, on the whole.

Regardless, while I do think it uncharitable and disrespectful to dismiss entire cultures as “uncivilised savages” per se, in the context of this discussion it is more your conclusion that their marriage traditions can be entirely ignored once you dismiss them as “uncivilised savages” that I consider to be appalling.

The Native Americans were around long before the USA, they are still there, many of them still maintain their ancient traditions, and many of them wear suits, run businesses, own iPhones, do Twitter and Facebook and generally do not deserve to be dismissed as “uncivilised savages” and have their traditions overruled by yours.

“Russians consider the Chukchi to be generally primitive, uncivilized and simple-minded, but clever in a naive kind of way.”

So if others do it, it must be OK for you to do it?

No. Remember what I did say. Marriage proceeded both the Church AND the state.

The word “marriage” did not.

Supported, yes. Read Roman Law. Or Plato’s Symposium and the Law

‘Unsupported’ in the sense that you did not support it.

Also, Plato was Greek not Roman. Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome are not the same thing.

I maintain that same sex unions were never recognized as marriages by any civilization with a written history.

But hace not proven it. Nor shown how it is relevant to this thread.

 

[Usagi]

Yes, but this event would be a very serious abomination against God…I tend to think God would indeed cause ‘something’ to happen, to make sure all of us recognize how upset he is about this.

I think you are overestimating the value God puts on this particular issue compared to every other horrible thing going on. He doesn’t immediately punish murder or rape or adultery, even if committed in the very presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. He doesn’t vent visible wrath on other abuses of the sacraments, like attempted ordinations of women or (probably most common of all) reception of Him by those in a state of mortal sin. He doesn’t slay people who use His name to promote hatred or killing or mental abuse of others. Why would we get fire and earthquakes for THIS offense? Just because it is a current hot-button issue doesn’t mean it’s the worst thing ever, not even the worst thing ever done in a Catholic church or in God’s name.

Kind of like right after Jesus died on the cross, the church that had ensured Jesus was put to death, cracked in half…this was pretty immediate, and Im sure those that saw this, knew right away how wrong they were.

At Jesus’ death, the curtain dividing the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple ripped in half, which is usually taken as a positive sign – the elimination of the barrier preventing union between God and humanity. I don’t recall anything about the whole building splitting in half. The Temple lasted another 40 years or so until the Romans sacked Jerusalem.

Usagi

 

[Bookcat]

Cannot happen. Ever.

Even if someone was to invade a Catholic Church …such would simply not happen. No marriage could happen. The words would be said but no marriage would happen.

 

[username124]

With all the news about gay rights and the ground they seem to gain year after year, personally, I think at some point in the near future, a gay couple will fight to have their marriage in a traditional catholic church, probably will be done out spite, but legally, I think the US legal system would probably grant them this right.

So in this hypothetical scenario, lets say, they ‘win’ the legal right and the CC must marry them, as they would perform any other marriage…I have no idea, but I would assume the consequences would be severe and probably immediate as well, not sure if the actual churches foundation would suddenly crack, earthquake, some other kind of disaster, etc? I would assume God would send his wrath right away though.

Anyone care to guess what would happen?

God would smite us with his mighty wrath…

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

But hace not proven it. Nor shown how it is relevant to this thread.

Your are right…it is not relevant to this thread…

So, DrTaffy, What would happen if a gay marriage were performed in a catholic church?

 

[DrTaffy]

Your are right…it is not relevant to this thread…

So, DrTaffy, What would happen if a gay marriage were performed in a catholic church?

See post #6

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

The Sacrament of Marriage is an act (conjugal act) administered between one man and one woman. The Church does not have this act “performed” at the church. We have “Nuptual Masses” where a marriage is Blessed during the Holy Mass.

Asking a Priest to “Bless” a marriage they do not approve of is similar to asking a Father to approve of a marriage He does not approve of (same sex, arguing couples, and those not in the grace of the teachings of the Church).

I guess I can see how legislation can force anyone to “Bless” something they disapprove of (what ever the reason to believe the marriage doesn’t honor God). What will happen? Probably many Priests and Deacons will goto jail like they have in the past.

However, if Papa Francis changes the way we include divorced & remarried couples in the church, this technically opens it up for same sex married couples to recieve the Holy Eucharist with Blessing, I think … My logic could be way off now a days though.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I can see a dissenting priest choosing to marry a gay couple in a Catholic Church. For that matter I know of at least one case where a Catholic priest allegedly married two other catholic priests, although where the ceremony took place was not stated. But I sincerely doubt any western country will force the Catholic Church to carry out SS weddings.

As to what would happen: two people will get married. Horribly overpriced cake and indifferent champagne will be consumed. Caterers will laugh all the way to the bank. The world will continue to turn.

I can agree with most of that.But I have fears…

On Friday, the Supreme Court announced it had agreed to hear cases regarding same-sex marriage.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court tossed Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that the federal government is bound to recognize same-sex marriages from states in which they are legal. The justices did not, however, go so far as to declare same-sex marriage a right – yet.

If the Supreme Court can redefine marriage, then is that same Supreme Court not powerful enough to impose its will on those who preach, teach and believe that the only true marriage is that between one man and one woman?

Where does it end? Bakers, florists and photographers are already under assault – just wait until same-sex marriage is a “constitutional right.”

 

[clem456]

I can agree with most of that.But I have fears…

On Friday, the Supreme Court announced it had agreed to hear cases regarding same-sex marriage.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court tossed Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, ruling that the federal government is bound to recognize same-sex marriages from states in which they are legal. The justices did not, however, go so far as to declare same-sex marriage a right – yet.

If the Supreme Court can redefine marriage, then is that same Supreme Court not powerful enough to impose its will on those who preach, teach and believe that the only true marriage is that between one man and one woman?

Where does it end? Bakers, florists and photographers are already under assault – just wait until same-sex marriage is a “constitutional right.”

We are witnessing the politicization of reality. Words that mean specific and unique things are changed by popular whim to mean something else.
In other words, politics makes right (or might makes right). Coercion is not far behind, it never is.

If basic observations about human nature cannot be admitted, there is not much that is safe from redefinition.

 

[Ignatius]

Anyone who attempted an illicit marriage of any kind would cause Latae sententiae to themselves.