why can't another label be used for same sex marriage?

[iloveangels]

Anyways, if they are different things, while we can define marriage as being a certain thing, we can’t expect that the rest of society will.

I see you have qualified your response, and yes, this means something now. You can’t expect that non-Catholics will all go hankering after Catholic marriages (or the definition of Catholic marriage either for that matter) if they don’t even want to be Catholic. It doesn’t work that way.

And a person can’t force them into it, against their wills. It’s wrong.

You can, and certainly should, support the idea of Catholic marriage in the voting booth, if you’re Catholic, that is.

But if you’re not Catholic, well what do you care about Catholic marriage, right?

This is a big problem that civil society has to solve. We can help as voters, but we cannot try to take over the whole thing by force or noise and rub everyone else’s nose in it. It won’t work.

 

[JimG]

And Catholics are part of civil society, and certainly should be informed on this issue. The truth of the natural law is something the Church has a right to uphold and a duty to teach people about - even if they aren’t Catholic. Do not make the mistake of saying that the Church cannot comment on civil organizations.

Take a look at this link again:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Yes, that’s my point. I and every other Catholic is a part of civil society. The health of civil society does concern me because I’m a part of it. I really don’t want to retreat into Catholic isolationism; in fact I think that Catholics have a duty to influence society for the better. That’s why the French situation of treating Catholic marriage as non-marriage for civil purposes annoys me. It seems rather like a remnant of the French revolution, though a quite small one. It strikes me as an attempt to make religion a purely private matter. But it is not and cannot be, a purely private matter.

And it’s not good for civil society when the State denies the essence of marriage.

 

[iloveangels]

Yes, that’s my point. I and every other Catholic is a part of civil society. The health of civil society does concern me because I’m a part of it. I really don’t want to retreat into Catholic isolationism; in fact I think that Catholics have a duty to influence society for the better. That’s why the French situation of treating Catholic marriage as non-marriage for civil purposes annoys me. It seems rather like a remnant of the French revolution, though a quite small one. It strikes me as an attempt to make religion a purely private matter. But it is not and cannot be, a purely private matter.

And it’s not good for civil society when the State denies the essence of marriage.

Then you have one vote because you are one citizen. Use it wisely.

But don’t try to beat anyone up because a) It won’t work, and b) I don’t want the consequences which are completely unnecessary.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And if there was good reason to believe that society would go down in flames because the government recognized gay marriage, then I’d be against it too. As would just about every other straight person. And probably most gay folks.

Nobody wants society to burn to the ground. Folks on my side of the argument haven’t been presented with any reasonable evidence that gay marriage will make it happen.

Why is “going down in flames” the requisite condition?

Shouldn’t “going to hell in a hand basket” suffice?

 

[Giants]

Why is “going down in flames” the requisite condition?

Shouldn’t “going to hell in a hand basket” suffice?

No, because you cannot fit all of society in a single hand basket.

I would know. I’ve tried.

 

[JimG]

And if there was good reason to believe that society would go down in flames because the government recognized gay marriage, then I’d be against it too. As would just about every other straight person. And probably most gay folks.

Nobody wants society to burn to the ground. Folks on my side of the argument haven’t been presented with any reasonable evidence that gay marriage will make it happen.

Unfortunately, the demonstration of the harm may ultimately be shown only be the experience of it, and by then it will be too late. Civilizational collapse is relatively rare, and usually accompanied by collapse of the family.

In the meantime, I can recommend a few books: Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization,” and Mary Eberstadt’s “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” as a beginning.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

You are assuming that Catholic sacramental marriage = civil marriage = natural marriage. For everyone, under every condition. That is simply not the case.

No, actually the church defines it the other way. Starting with natural marriage identified by natural law as the union between one and and one woman that has the possibility of fertility. Then the Church says that the state has a vested interest in strong families and so has a reason to regulate marriage hence civil marriages. Finally the Church says that marriage between two baptised Christians with no other impediments is Sacramental by virtue of the baptism of the husband and wife.

The Church continues to defend those definitions and encourage Catholics (and other Christians) to influence civil society. The Church is not dictating to civil lawmakers, but directing her children.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Unfortunately, the demonstration of the harm may ultimately be shown only be the experience of it, and by then it will be too late. Civilizational collapse is relatively rare, and usually accompanied by collapse of the family.

In the meantime, I can recommend a few books: Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization,” and Mary Eberstadt’s “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” as a beginning.

Both of these are excellent books - not easy or pleasant to read, but well worth it.

The Church has spoken prophetically on these types of issues many times in the past -most notably with Humanae Vitae. We would do well to heed her teaching on these issues.

 

[Giants]

Unfortunately, the demonstration of the harm may ultimately be shown only be the experience of it, and by then it will be too late. Civilizational collapse is relatively rare, and usually accompanied by collapse of the family.

In the meantime, I can recommend a few books: Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization,” and Mary Eberstadt’s “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” as a beginning.

I’m not even really asking you to demonstrate it, although you should be able to, if there was a casual relationship there. SSM has been legal in Europe for several years now. If this was having some sort of destructive effect on society, we would begin to see the effects already.

But the key is, it needs to demonstrate a causal relationship. Quite often, I’ll hear people spout facts about rising divorce rates in nations with legal SSM. To the extent that these assertions cash out, they are merely correlations. They have as much validity as taking increased sales of hybrid SUVs in tandem with rising divorce rates, and claiming that one caused the other.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And if there was good reason to believe that society would go down in flames because the government recognized gay marriage, then I’d be against it too. As would just about every other straight person. And probably most gay folks.

Nobody wants society to burn to the ground. Folks on my side of the argument haven’t been presented with any reasonable evidence that gay marriage will make it happen.

The problem with this argument is that real cause of harm is not so easy to assess or trace over time if it isn’t a directly inflicted trauma. It is irresponsible to assume a posture of “how can it hurt” when real resulting harm can be overlooked because it cannot be traced or easily detected.

Systemic poverty, drug abuse, suicide and many other social ills are the result of a complexity of causes. Some of them even because of unjust legislation. When harm is difficult to trace to a specific cause, it becomes very easy to deny connections. So, you are right, when society burns to the ground you will still be able to stand back and claim it wasn’t SSM that was the cause. How could any cause be verified when a network of social ills are all interchangeably the root cause, but none can directly be traced? Even when studies show correlation, those could be disputed.

That puts us in a very tenuous position with regard to the health of society. We are susceptible to much harm but are severely limited in how we go about finding and prescribing solutions or applying proscriptions. In the meantime, additional questionable practices are added to the volatile mix without thought under the pretext that they have not as yet been shown to be harmful. When it finally does “burn down,” only the survivors will be left to do the forensic investigation. **The problem is you are asking for a forensic burden of proof before it does exist. ** “I never thought that would happen!” will be a fittingly callow response.

 

[iloveangels]

I’m not even really asking you to demonstrate it, although you should be able to, if there was a casual relationship there. SSM has been legal in Europe for several years now. If this was having some sort of destructive effect on society, we would begin to see the effects already.

But the key is, it needs to demonstrate a causal relationship. Quite often, I’ll hear people spout facts about rising divorce rates in nations with legal SSM. To the extent that these assertions cash out, they are merely correlations. They have as much validity as taking increased sales of hybrid SUVs in tandem with rising divorce rates, and claiming that one caused the other.

FYI, Giants. Consequences are not the real reason why Catholics object to this, although consequences may occur from it, as they usually do from tampering with nature. Neither is political agreement or disagreement the real reason, which is neither here nor there as far as religion goes. Catholics don’t believe in this for religious reasons.

I see your religious label says “none” so if you’re having trouble seeing what we’re saying, that would be the reason for it, most likely.

 

[iloveangels]

No, actually the church defines it the other way. Starting with natural marriage identified by natural law as the union between one and and one woman that has the possibility of fertility. Then the Church says that the state has a vested interest in strong families and so has a reason to regulate marriage hence civil marriages. Finally the Church says that marriage between two baptised Christians with no other impediments is Sacramental by virtue of the baptism of the husband and wife.

The Church continues to defend those definitions and encourage Catholics (and other Christians) to influence civil society. The Church is not dictating to civil lawmakers, but directing her children.

Yeah, there you go, telling civil society what’s good for it. What if they don’t believe you?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m not even really asking you to demonstrate it, although you should be able to, if there was a casual relationship sic, pun intended?] there. SSM has been legal in Europe for several years now. If this was having some sort of destructive effect on society, we would begin to see the effects already.

Why should we only after several years? What precisely would we look for? The further breakdown of marriages, perhaps? Defined as what?

Nebulous definitions, nebulous research, nebulous results.

Let’s just all admit that we have no idea how this will impact future generations and that the entire venture is a blind leap in the dark but we are going to do it anyway because we lack anything resembling a bony fibre in our moral backbone. That would be an honest shouldering of responsibility, despite the handicapping spinal problem.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Yeah, there you go, telling civil society what’s good for it. What if they don’t believe you?

Then they go up in flames with no proof as to the cause.

 

[Flame4]

I see you have qualified your response, and yes, this means something now. You can’t expect that non-Catholics will all go hankering after Catholic marriages (or the definition of Catholic marriage either for that matter) if they don’t even want to be Catholic. It doesn’t work that way.

And a person can’t force them into it, against their wills. It’s wrong.

You can, and certainly should, support the idea of Catholic marriage in the voting booth, if you’re Catholic, that is.

But if you’re not Catholic, well what do you care about Catholic marriage, right?

This is a big problem that civil society has to solve. We can help as voters, but we cannot try to take over the whole thing by force or noise and rub everyone else’s nose in it. It won’t work.

I am Catholic and support the idea of marriage as the Church defines it (between man and woman, people who can consent and have consented, etc)

All I’m saying is that focusing on the name of “marriage” doesn’t get to the heart of the issue: That homosexual “marriages” are both morally wrong and will cause problems in society. If you want examples of problems in society then the biggest is how children are raised. If gay couples are considered to be the same as a married couple legally when it comes to adopting, it is unfair for the child who deserves a mother and father.Homosexual unions also seem like a slippery slope: if marriage can be between two men or two woman, why does it have to stop at 2? Those just a few examples, but as you can see, placing homosexual unions on the same level legally will cause all sorts of problems for society in the long run.

Marriage is a sacrament and has spiritual implications. However our lives as Catholics aren’t limited to “religious participation” ; therefore marriage also functions beyond, in our daily lives and society at large. As Catholics we believe marriage is something which is integral to creating a good and just societies. We can’t seperate the spiritual side of marriage from the practical implications in has.

EDIT:
(Just wanted to add something)

Even if people aren’t Catholic and therefore can’t have a sacramental marriage, the Church teaches that any type of homosexual activity is wrong. The state seeing homosexual unions as being equal to marriages bewteen a man and woman is morally wrong and causes societal problems. Others may reject Church teachings, but the Church has the duty to preach moral truths.

God Bless

 

[iloveangels]

Then they go up in flames with no proof as to the cause.

Wow. That’s the first time I’ve ever heard fire and brimstone come out of a Catholic. You go, girl.

 

[iloveangels]

I am Catholic and support the idea of marriage as the Church defines it (between man and woman, people who can consent and have consented, etc)

All I’m saying is that focusing on the name of “marriage” doesn’t get to the heart of the issue: …
God Bless

Well, providing you live in the US, you have precisely one vote. Use it wisely.

 

[Giants]

Why should we only after several years? What precisely would we look for? The further breakdown of marriages, perhaps? Defined as what?

Nebulous definitions, nebulous research, nebulous results.

Yet such definitive assertions from folks on your side of the argument. That gay marriage will cause higher divorce rates, or fewer children being born, or fewer marriages, or more STDs, or more generally, the breakdown of society. I ask for someone to prove a causal link here, or even suggest how one could lead to the other. And then suddenly the burden of proof is somehow shifted to me to explain how such a thing would be measured.

I’ll say this - I’m thrilled to hear someone concede that they haven’t the slightest clue what the consequences of legalized gay marriage would be, even if you’re trying to assume the same thing for my own argument. That obviously doesn’t follow, but it’s a step in the right direction, regardless.

 

[iloveangels]

Yet such definitive assertions from folks on your side of the argument. That gay marriage will cause higher divorce rates, or fewer children being born, or fewer marriages, or more STDs, or more generally, the breakdown of society. I ask for someone to prove a causal link here, or even suggest how one could lead to the other. And then suddenly the burden of proof is somehow shifted to me to explain how such a thing would be measured.

I’ll say this - I’m thrilled to hear someone concede that they haven’t the slightest clue what the consequences of legalized gay marriage would be, even if you’re trying to assume the same thing for my own argument. That obviously doesn’t follow, but it’s a step in the right direction, regardless.

No, it’s not. You’re flailing on this one. This is about religion, not about social consequences. You’d probably like it if it were about social consequences. But it’s not. Social consequences may well happen, but it’ll just be too bad if they do. You’ll just have to deal with them the same way you deal with everything else, I guess.

 

[Giants]

FYI, Giants. Consequences are not the real reason why Catholics object to this, although consequences may occur from it, as they usually do from tampering with nature. Neither is political agreement or disagreement the real reason, which is neither here nor there as far as religion goes. Catholics don’t believe in this for religious reasons.

I see your religious label says “none” so if you’re having trouble seeing what we’re saying, that would be the reason for it, most likely.

I know exactly what you’re saying. However, your religious reasons (which also deal with consequences of a different sort) are ultimately irrelevant in this debate. The government is explicitly prohibited from considering the Catholic Church’s doctrinal position in making a decision on gay marriage. If you want to convince the government of anything, the only thing you can do is try to make a case that the state and society have interests that would be harmed by legalizing SSM. I have yet to hear a compelling case to that effect.