Why do some Catholics support "Gay Marriage"

[SerbCath]

I don’t know if this will quell your fears, but in Canada same sex marriage has been legal since 2005. There has been no attempt to force any denomination to perform SSM. The system you described is what they have in France and that also seems to work well.

I don’t think Canadians like to sue as much as we do. The bakery case. The photographer case. The Methodist church that was sued for not allowing the ceremony in their buliding have ALREADY occurred. It’s just a matter of time.

 

[China123]

“America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance — it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.”

Bishop Fulton Sheen
“A Plea For Intolerance” (1931)

I think, as other people have stated, that many believe in error because they are both not informed Catholics and because they feel the sting of intolerance. No one wants to be labeled mean or bigoted or not caring. Misguided compassion is a huge problem.

 

[Mandychu22]

I like to keep it simple.

You ask…I answer.

Ask a question that requires elaboration and I will be glad to provide.

When there is a difference in opinion, the elaboration is always required. Especially when the logic behind an idea is CLEARLY rooted in faith, as it is in this case.

I believe that the Catholic concept of marriage is the best one available, but I don’t ever claim that I can prove it… it’s like proving anything that is religious in nature, at some point faith is required (no matter how little). You can’t force faith.

 

[Mandychu22]

Mandy, the “majority” could decide that from now on oranges will be known as apples.

That does not make an orange an apple.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what it would mean. That is how language works.

Apple used to mean ‘any fruit’, but now it refers to a specific type… by your logic I could call any fruit an apple and expect people to conform to my definition because it came about first.

 

[pianistclare]

I don’t understand why that hasn’t happened everywhere already (I believe it has, in some manner, in France… you need a civil ceremony AND a religious one if you want the benefits of both). It would take care of any lawsuits, and also help Catholics to understand that there is actually a difference.

I have indeed heard that this is the path the Catholic Church may be forced to take.
…just sacramental marriages.

Sounds fine to me.
People have to go to the courthouse to get a license anyway.

 

[HelenRose]

I agree with this. However, with the latest onslaught of lawsuits against those who refues to participate, I wonder what is next. I fear that when a gay couple walks into a Catholic church and asks to be married and are refused–they will sue. The mixing of civil and sacramental marriage has brought this disaster upon us.

I think the solution in the interim may be that the Catholic church stops performing what is essentially a mix of both (where the priest acts as an agent of the state while he coincidentally performs a sacramental marriage). In other words, the Church needs to be proactive and state essentially “as of today, priests will NOT sign any civil marriage documents. They will perfrom the sacrament only. What couples do to “legalize” their union after that is up to them.”

I am really leaning this direction as well. Let “civil” contracts be “civil” contracts and the government can call it what ever it wants to. The Church can be in the work of “Holy Matrimony”.

In Germany couples are first married in a court house then if they so desire they can be married within their religion if they wish. This makes complete sense to me.

In a way I find this whole business sad. I have a close friend whose son is gay. She has been very vocal about the “right” of her son to be married. Yet, she and her boyfriend have lived together for 13 years without considering marriage.

It is almost as if gays are coming into an already irrelevant “right”.
It seems as if the main part of the contract for marriage are the laws surrounding a possible divorce.

P.S. It seem to me that signing a civil marriage contract is admitting that the marriage may dissolve at anytime.

 

[Mandychu22]

I have indeed heard that this is the path the Catholic Church may be forced to take.
…just sacramental marriages.

Sounds fine to me.
People have to go to the courthouse to get a license anyway.

Agreed. Marrying legally and then sacramentally in the Church would have cost me about 20 minutes of time.

 

[TMC]

I think its because people (read: social conservatives) are really really really hoping that we can just click our heals together and rewind the clock to a point where the state definition of marriage (sort of) lined up with the church one.

In reality, it never did (contract vs sacrament) but on the outsite (one man one woman) it appeared to.

Marriage “licenses” by the state did not exist 400 years ago. Once they state got involved, this was all predictable.

I disagree. Marriage has a much longer history as a civil construct than a religious one. Marriages existed long before the time of Christianity, and it exists in countries that have never practiced Christianity. It was a legal issue for inheritance rights, property issues, etc - just as it is today. The Church’s involvement in marriage is what came later.

I agree with those that suggest the Church simply treat sacramental and civil marriage as two different things. That is what occurs today anyway – most marriages in the US (and everywhere else) are not recognized as valid marriages by the Church. Why should gay marriages be any different? The state should recognize their marriages as an important civil right and legal construct, and let the Church say it does not recognize those marriages - just as it doesn’t recognize most other marriages.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Really? So the bible is wrong when it reports that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines? And that David had eight wives and who knows how many concubines? And so forth?

I wonder if Solomon and David’s “harems” included a few gay guys. And if so, I wonder how their society would define that relationship. Would the guys be “wives”?

 

[Lormar]

“Christian marriage” (which is Marriage) began with the first man and first woman. Our Church just reaffirms this universal truth.

Quite right.

And this IS a Catholic forum.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Actually, that is EXACTLY what it would mean. That is how language works.

Apple used to mean ‘any fruit’, but now it refers to a specific type… by your logic I could call any fruit an apple and expect people to conform to my definition because it came about first.

Not exactly. It is true that words have meaning. But “meaning” does not equal what something actually is.

Let’s get away from “fruits” as examples.

You may call a cat a dog…but that does not make a cat a dog.

 

[Twitter]

Because they are awake.

 

[HelenRose]

I wonder if Solomon and David’s “harems” included a few gay guys. And if so, I wonder how their society would define that relationship. Would the guys be “wives”?

Solomon’s maybe. David’s probably not.

It took time for the Jews to move away from the pagan culture of 1000 BC. But they did and by the time of Christ the teachings of the Jewish culture had reached even further back to the beginning of God’s natural law.

What we are witnessing now is a modern culture heading toward the same pagan culture of polygamy, and all the other variations the human sexuality that can be conjured up, to demand acceptance and “State” blessings.

 

[Mandychu22]

Not exactly. It is true that words have meaning. But “meaning” does not equal what something actually is.

Let’s get away from “fruits” as examples.

You may call a cat a dog…but that does not make a cat a dog.

The purpose of language is communication. I cannot call a cat a dog and have it be true, however society can alter the definitions of those words over time until what was once known as a cat is now known by the word dog. At that point, calling what we know to be a cat by the term “dog” would be absolutely correct. That is what would ‘make’ a cat a dog: the generally recognised change in language.

Just so with legal marriage. Calling it marriage doesn’t make it marriage as the Church defines it, however the definition generally held by society does make it linguistically correct to refer to legal marriages by the term ‘marriage’.

Unfortunately we can’t just ignore the evolution of language while still expecting to communicate effectively… that defeats the purpose of knowing a language. As such, we need to adapt to the linguistic realities of our time.

 

[Elizium23]

I agree with those that suggest the Church simply treat sacramental and civil marriage as two different things. That is what occurs today anyway – most marriages in the US (and everywhere else) are not recognized as valid marriages by the Church. Why should gay marriages be any different? The state should recognize their marriages as an important civil right and legal construct, and let the Church say it does not recognize those marriages - just as it doesn’t recognize most other marriages.

Incorrect. The vast majority of civil marriages in the world are recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. The only ones that are not come under two categories: lack of canonical form for baptized Catholics, and diriment impediments such as a pre-existing marriage bond, impotence, or union not between one man and one woman.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The purpose of language is communication. I cannot call a cat a dog and have it be true, however society can alter the definitions of those words over time until what was once known as a cat is now known by the word dog. At that point, calling what we know to be a cat by the term “dog” would be absolutely correct. That is what would ‘make’ a cat a dog: the generally recognised change in language.

Just so with legal marriage. Calling it marriage doesn’t make it marriage as the Church defines it, however the definition generally held by society does make it linguistically correct to refer to legal marriages by the term ‘marriage’.

Unfortunately we can’t just ignore the evolution of language while still expecting to communicate effectively… that defeats the purpose of knowing a language. As such, we need to adapt to the linguistic realities of our time.

So based on language only, would you expect the Church to eventually accept the term “marriage” to define a same sex relationship ?

 

[HelenRose]

The purpose of language is communication. I cannot call a cat a dog and have it be true, however society can alter the definitions of those words over time until what was once known as a cat is now known by the word dog. At that point, calling what we know to be a cat by the term “dog” would be absolutely correct. That is what would ‘make’ a cat a dog: the generally recognised change in language.

Just so with legal marriage. Calling it marriage doesn’t make it marriage as the Church defines it, however the definition generally held by society does make it linguistically correct to refer to legal marriages by the term ‘marriage’.

Unfortunately we can’t just ignore the evolution of language while still expecting to communicate effectively… that defeats the purpose of knowing a language. As such, we need to adapt to the linguistic realities of our time.

It makes it difficult realizing that the change in the meaning of words is done deliberately. We find ourselves talking past each other.

Secular definition of marriage: Contract between people who have sex together.

Catholic definition of marriage: Sacramental promise between a Man and a Woman who are open to life.

(Definitions are over simplified of course.)

 

[Oreoracle]

Ask a question that requires elaboration and I will be glad to provide.

I did. You evaded answering the question because you can’t.

But I’m rather accommodating, so I’ll ask again:* Why is the Catholic definition of “marriage” preferable to other definitions, especially considering that it hasn’t been a consistent definition, nor is it the most widespread, nor was it the first?*

 

[StephenL]

I did. You evaded answering the question because you can’t.

But I’m rather accommodating, so I’ll ask again:* Why is the Catholic definition of “marriage” preferable to other definitions, especially considering that it hasn’t been a consistent definition, nor is it the most widespread, nor was it the first?*

Please do not try to evade the post question

 

[Thorns]

Really? So the bible is wrong when it reports that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines? And that David had eight wives and who knows how many concubines? And so forth?

And whoever said Solomon and David were sinless?