Why do some Catholics support "Gay Marriage"

[Midwest88]

I don’t care what you believe. It’s just common sense to only help those that want to be helped, doing otherwise will just get you a black eye and broken nose.

Then why are you here then? An atheist on a non-atheistic/secular site … Mildly amusing.

Lokadottir

I can point you to RESEARCH which shows polyamory is entirely healthy. “Christian” marriages go south all the time. Does this show they are false? Or that people screw up.

Like I said above: Mildly amusing. You say RESEARCH then you pull the bold.

 

[ashwood]

Creating “rights” does not make them real. It’s just inventing things. Predicting the future is not relevant, right and wrong is.

Peace,
Ed

That’s what rights are. Concepts invited by man and as history shows new rights can be made and old ones can be dropped. And what exactly is right and wrong?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

No. There is a separation of church and state and that makes it secular.

I would agree that the United States government is secular in the sense that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the federal government (and the state governments through the First and Fourteenth Amendments) from enacting a law respecting the establishment of religion. But by no means does this disqualify people of any religious persuasion from voicing their opinions in the marketplace of ideas. In this context, Catholics and others (Jews, Muslims, LDS, etc.) who believe the traditional definition of marriage that has existed since long before the founding of the Country should remain intact are not disqualified from taking that point of view simply because it is also in line with various religious doctrines. People of faith are not compelled by the Constitution to stifle their point of view on any political issues.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I thought we were talking about laws - why some Catholics support laws allowing gay people to marry. The Catholic Church does not advocating applying any of the Church’s other rules on marriage to non-Catholics. Why is this one law different?

Hello TMC:

The Church is not advocating the imposition of doctrine on the state laws defining marriage. it is standing against the change of the definition of marriage in those laws, which would ignore the long-standing cultural and societal definition of what marriage is, what it’s societal purpose is, and what it accomplishes. The Church didn’t wake up one morning and say, “Hey, let’s deny fundamental rights to gay people by changing the definition of marriage.” That is the implication of your comment. But the Church didn’t “pick” this fight. It is reacting to attempts to alter the legal definition.

The issue was raised by the gay community that argues, “Hey, modern society has so completely misunderstood the fundamental nature of marriage that it now appears we can alter the definition by court action, so that it completely obscures the life-giving necessity of the marital union!” In this sense, the fight is different from every other distinction between civil marriage and the sacrament that the Church dispenses. No other distinction misunderstands the very natural character of marriage.

Peace,
Robert

 

[ProdigalSun]

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.

That is because in Canada if you openly reject it’s concept and or rebel against it you will find yourself in front of a Human rights Tribunal. With a great chance of being fined and not allowed to speak of this again. THere are examples of Bed and breakfast couples, photographers, Sidewalk preachers, JOurnalists have all been taken in front of these Kangaroo courts to only loose their freedom of speech and have to pay these perverts money.

It is a deplorable situation in Canada. We can’t even have an open discussion about abortion here. Deplorable I say!

Peace!

 

[vsedriver]

In the Garden of Eden, fully grown, I suppose.

Marriage has many definitions depending on the culture you are describing. In my opinion, the one thing this world is sorely lacking is love, and any two people committing to each other increases that love.

The End.

so you have no objections to incestuous marriage. If a brother and sister love eachother then they should be allowed to marry. Likewise two brothers or two sisters or even adult child and parent.

If the gender requirement for marriage is no longer valid they why should the familial relationship restrictions remain?

 

[vsedriver]

I don’t care what you believe. It’s just common sense to only help those that want to be helped, doing otherwise will just get you a black eye and broken nose.

so families shouldn’t bother with interventions for their loved ones? Just let the guy rot? or go nuts till he rapes and murders an innocent person? Kills a few people while driving drunk?

Am I my brother’s keeper?

 

[vsedriver]

I don’t follow. The rights of children are not contingent on one’s definition of “marriage”; the worst-case scenario is that you would have to tweak the phrasing of existing rights. Marriage as an institution could be eliminated tomorrow and there would still be no legal or moral ground for neglecting children’s rights

.

but there would be a legal or moral ground for neglecting children’s rights. If gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage than you can’t give preference to straight couples over gay couples when handing out adoptive children.

The rebuttal to the remainder of your post is easy, because this is simply not what I stated, neither for past nor current marriages.

Just because you don’t want to procreate doesn’t mean your paternal or maternal instinct withers away.

and this is the right children will be denied. The right to be raised by both maternal and paternal instincts. Nature has designed us to be the result of two genders. It is not right to deny a child a father or mother. So no matter the state of a couples fertility, desire to have or not have sexual relations, or age… as long as one is male and one is female they fulfill the definition of ‘potential parents’.

two gays can never fulfill that definition.

 

[Rau]

Why do some Catholics support “Gay Marriage”

Many people feel a great sympathy for those attracted to the same sex and wish them to have what will make them happy. They are also seduced by the notion that the primary criteria for marriage is “love”, and thus believe there is a question of equity involved in who is eligible for marriage. They also fail to understand that Marriage has value to the society beyond that which a same sex relationship can deliver. And finally, the practices of some jurisdictions grant benefits (only) to married couples which adds to the perceived justification for same sex marriage. [The last point makes for an interesting debate on its own.]

 

[Rau]

Because after much thought and consideration, they believe it is the proper and correct thing to do.

That side-steps the question. Your answer can be taken as a given (…of course people decide in favour of what they think is right…). The question asks how did they come to that “answer”.

 

[LongingSoul]

Many people feel a great sympathy for those attracted to the same sex and wish them to have what will make them happy. They are also seduced by the notion that the primary criteria for marriage is “love”, and thus believe there is a question of equity involved in who is eligible for marriage. They also fail to understand that Marriage has value to the society beyond that which a same sex relationship can deliver. And finally, the practices of some jurisdictions grant benefits (only) to married couples which adds to the perceived justification for same sex marriage. [The last point makes for an interesting debate on its own.]

Also many Catholics feel that although they accept Catholic teaching themselves, they have no right to expect that standard of society as a whole. They think of the Church position on homosexuality as being similar to its position on our Sunday Mass obligation.

However, as our last Aussie Prime Minister, Julia Gillard (Labor Party) demonstrated… many people oppose same sex marriage based on traditions that uphold natural law. She herself is an atheist and very socialist leaning, however she staunchly opposed the introduction of same sex marriage in Australia. Like other sexual practices that are injurious to individuals or to the common good, we are obliged by civil stewardship to defend important social institutions like marriage and traditional family values for the common good.

 

[SkepticalAsEver]

Because they don’t understand the proper definition of marriage.

And this is why I left the catholic church and never looked back.

 

[Kitcat1968]

I am a devout catholic for over 50 years. I do not support same sex marriage as far as my faith is concerned. I do, however, support civil same sex marriage. It does no harm to the church, as no civil marriages do. I feel we catholics have become too preoccupied with this issue. It is not an attack on HER, the one true church; it is a civil matter. I prefer to keep my faith and my politics separate…but I digress. I know many disagree.

Love & Peace, Kitcat

 

[Rau]

I am a devout catholic for over 50 years. I do not support same sex marriage as far as my faith is concerned. I do, however, support civil same sex marriage. It does no harm to the church, as no civil marriages do. I feel we catholics have become too preoccupied with this issue. It is not an attack on HER, the one true church; it is a civil matter. I prefer to keep my faith and my politics separate…but I digress. I know many disagree.

Love & Peace, Kitcat

Do you mean to say that you “support” same sex marriage (as you wrote), or do you mean you don’t much care what the state does?

Do you not regard it as odd that the state might regard your marriage, and a same sex “marriage”, as absolutely **equivalent **(in terms of their relevance to the state).

What motivation do you perceive the state to have for recognising a same sex couple, and is that just the same motivation for recognising your Marriage? [After all - the State sees value in the institution - it does not provide it without reason.]

[If you’re not actually married - perhaps you could respond as though you were…]

 

[Kitcat1968]

Do you mean to say that you “support” same sex marriage (as you wrote), or do you mean you don’t much care what the state does?

Do you not regard it as odd that the state might regard your marriage, and a same sex “marriage”, as absolutely **equivalent **(in terms of their relevance to the state).

What motivation do you perceive the state to have for recognising a same sex couple, and is that just the same motivation for recognising your Marriage? [After all - the State sees value in the institution - it does not provide it without reason.]

[If you’re not actually married - perhaps you could respond as though you were…]

I fully support CIVIL same sex marriage. Many of these marriages benefit the State much the same way any other civil marriage does: they raise children to be productive, contributing members of society. Many same sex couples are raising children either by adoption or other means. I may not agree with how some of these children came to be, but not allowing the parents who raise them the benefit of the state is a disservice to the CHILDREN.

 

[Rau]

I fully support CIVIL same sex marriage. Many of these marriages benefit the State much the same way any other civil marriage does: they raise children to be productive, contributing members of society. Many same sex couples are raising children either by adoption or other means. I may not agree with how some of these children came to be, but not allowing the parents who raise them the benefit of the state is a disservice to the CHILDREN.

I don’t follow your reasoning. You believe civil same sex marriage is a good thing - you “fully support” it. But the church does not support it, and (presumably) you would not support the Church marrying same sex couples.

How can something be good, and earn your full support, but then when you think about your faith, you don’t support it? How do you reconcile these different positions?

I note you imply you don’t support procuring children by surrogacy and the like, but given the children exist, you naturally want to see them cared for. Is this the essence of your support for same sex ‘marriage’ - there are children requiring parents? If not - what is the essence of your support?

 

[Kitcat1968]

I don’t follow your reasoning. You believe civil same sex marriage is a good thing - you “fully support” it. But the church does not support it, and (presumably) you would not support the Church marrying same sex couples.

How can something be good, and earn your full support, but then when you think about your faith, you don’t support it? How do you reconcile these different positions?

I note you imply you don’t support procuring children by surrogacy and the like, but given the children exist, you naturally want to see them cared for. Is this the essence of your support for same sex ‘marriage’ - there are children requiring parents? If not - what is the essence of your support?

I support CIVIL same sex marriage. I would NOT support such a union within the church. I reconcile this by acknowledging there is a fine line between the church and the state, at least in the US.

And yes, I’m personally opposed to surrogacy and the like, but once the child is born and his parents have been established as a same sex couple, I believe the state should give this family the same benefits as any family. It is not an attack on our church. Politics should remain a separate entity.

I’m also not opposed to same sex adoption. Doing so suggests a child is better off an orphan than by being raised by a committed, monogamous, loving couple who can provide for the child.

As long as these matters do not interfere with the church, and remain civil matters, I can not in good conscious oppose it.

 

[Rau]

I support CIVIL same sex marriage. I would NOT support such a union within the church. I reconcile this by acknowledging there is a fine line between the church and the state, at least in the US.

I’m sorry to persist, but this makes no sense to me. I could understand you might ignore civil same sex marriage, but you go beyond it and support it, in opposition to your church. The church opposes both the institution, and the associated sexual relationship.

You have not explained why these things earn your support.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I fully support CIVIL same sex marriage.

Catholics who support any of kind of so-called gay “marriage” should excuse themselves from Communion.

Many of these marriages benefit the State much the same way any other civil marriage does: they raise children to be productive, contributing members of society.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Marriage has many definitions depending on the culture you are describing. In my opinion, the one thing this world is sorely lacking is love, and any two people committing to each other increases that love.

The End.

The it’s “love” excuse is so easily defeated on a Catholic forum.

Two same-sex couples cannot have children without third party interference, thus they cannot express love by having children with only each other.

There is much more to love than just commitment. Besides, gay relationships tend to be short and unstable.

Not my idea of “love” or commitment.