Why does it matter? (Gay marriage)

[Susansmum]

Ok let me preface this with a statement that this thread is not about if it is right or wrong, as we all know where the church stands on the matter, and why she won’t change, and I’m good with that.
What I want to know is why does it matter what people outside the church do?
Regardless of weather there is a same sex ‘marriage’ it will never be allowed inside the church, but neither is remarriage after divorce, and yet me don’t have the expectation that those outside the church will not remarry after divorce, we don’t petition for that to be illegal and it isnt’t a valid marriage as far as the church is concerned?

It just seems like the church is pretty relaxed on when non members do, so long as they don’t try to bring it in to the church, and as long as her members don’t participate so why do we care what same sex partners want?
Please correct me because I feel that I am missing something!

 

[jonathan_hili]

That’s a good question, Susan’s Mum.

Here are some suggestions from what I can see - why does it matter if same-sex marriage is legalised?

(i) It is fundamentally a lie and violates natural law: because of the nature of marriage, rooted in understanding of human biology, psychology and socialisation, to legislate that marriage can be between people of the same sex is to publicly affirm a profound lie within a fundamental social institution. In principle, it is never right to establish a social lie. For example, if the government established health care programmes deliberately designed to cause obesity, heart failure, diabetes, etc., or established a hospital system that only prescribed placebos and did not practice real medicine.

(ii) It morally rubber stamps homosexual acts as moral and legitimate; moreover, a “gay” lifestyle as moral and legitimate. This would mean that schools, the media, etc. would have to promote these acts and lifestyles as norms, which would indoctrinate (for us of a better term) generations into believing this is true, although it is false (see i above).

(iii) It would make it difficult, if not criminal, to publicly speak out against homosexual acts and lifestyles. If the government writes something into law it is taken as being moral and good. To speak against this is not only subversive but also against what is perceived as moral and good. Any individual or group who does this is likely to be increasingly seen over time as retrograde and possibly criminal. Since it is the Church’s mission to preach the truth and good news, Her mission would be hampered and Her apostles endangered in this kind of environment. This will also:

(iv) Undermine the moral authority of the Church, as She is seen as speaking out against lawmakers.

(v) It leads people astray by encouraging them to believe that, due to legislation, homosexual acts and lifestyles are good, and therefore fine to engage in. Yet, we know that such a lifestyle separates us from God. Christians themselves will be more likely to enter the lifestyle as a result.

(vi) The Church cares about all people and all truth. Even those who are not Catholics are still souls for Christ. He wills that all are saved. By legislating same-sex marriage, many may be damned as a result of their actions and lifestyles, and it will be much harder for the Church to reach out to those people because, after all, they are only doing what’s in the purview of the law.

Finally, and most importantly,

(vii) It will be the final separation of children from the institution of marriage. If a same-sex marriage is legally and in-name on par with a heterosexual marriage, then children are not a factor marriage, but an “optional extra”. This will mean that children do not have the right to married parents. Moreover, it will mean that spouses can more easily divorce with little recourse to their children since marriage becomes primarily a contract made between two persons, and not an institution for rearing children and attaching them to their parents.

Just some thoughts.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Ok let me preface this with a statement that this thread is not about if it is right or wrong, as we all know where the church stands on the matter, and why she won’t change, and I’m good with that.
What I want to know is why does it matter what people outside the church do?
Regardless of weather there is a same sex ‘marriage’ it will never be allowed inside the church, but neither is remarriage after divorce, and yet me don’t have the expectation that those outside the church will not remarry after divorce, we don’t petition for that to be illegal and it isnt’t a valid marriage as far as the church is concerned?

It just seems like the church is pretty relaxed on when non members do, so long as they don’t try to bring it in to the church, and as long as her members don’t participate so why do we care what same sex partners want?
Please correct me because I feel that I am missing something!

Children. Each societal definition that is contrary to Church teaching makes it that more difficult to get through to our children that the world’s endorsement of it, the world’s legitimization of it, does not mean that it is okay. The world places its stamp of approval on many ungodly and often gravely sinful activities-- abortion, homosexual sex, sex outside of marriage, divorce, immodest dress, greedy behavior, lust for power, pride, slanderous gossip, and the list goes on. Each new legitimization is an attack on Christian values and sends a confusing message to our children.

Our government approves it; it must be okay.
Everyone else is doing it.
They said it was all right in school.

Gay m*rriage is just one more erosion of Christian values in our society. We don’t want any of these wrong values to claim our children. It’s a formidable task to raise children in today’s environment and it’s only getting worse.

 

[DexUK]

Ok let me preface this with a statement that this thread is not about if it is right or wrong, as we all know where the church stands on the matter, and why she won’t change, and I’m good with that.
What I want to know is why does it matter what people outside the church do?
Regardless of weather there is a same sex ‘marriage’ it will never be allowed inside the church, but neither is remarriage after divorce, and yet me don’t have the expectation that those outside the church will not remarry after divorce, we don’t petition for that to be illegal and it isnt’t a valid marriage as far as the church is concerned?

It just seems like the church is pretty relaxed on when non members do, so long as they don’t try to bring it in to the church, and as long as her members don’t participate so why do we care what same sex partners want?
Please correct me because I feel that I am missing something!

If you’ve read other threads on the subject, you’ll see that I’m coming at it from more or less the same position. The Holy Father himself has said that we shouldn’t be interfering in other people’s private lives.

Yes, the Church doesn’t like what others do and it holds that position because of its particular religious beliefs and we as Catholics shouldn’t be holding to the beliefs of the secular world on the matter, but there are, unfortunately, a lot of people who take that position and make it a political one and start telling people what to do without that actual temporal authority to do so. I am instinctively against such actions because, to me, it often comes across incredibly arrogant and, to those who aren’t Catholic, it can feel like they’re being lectured and condemned and isn’t at all likely to encourage them to convert their way of life.

I sympathise with your thinking. Unfortunately I think there are a lot of people who are unprepared to act as charitably towards the outside world as they ought to. If we can’t change minds in a compassionate and gentle way, the best we can do, ultimately, is pray for all concerned.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Ah, we dance the old dance.

The Holy Father himself has said that we shouldn’t be interfering in other people’s private lives.

So you equate that with the Pope saying we shouldn’t oppose same-sex marriage legislation, Dex? Can you show me the quote please?

Also, if this is what he means, then the bishops - who are opposing same-sex marriage legislation throughout the world, including himself, when he was just Cardinal Bergoglio! - are actively working against the Pope.

…unfortunately, a lot of people who take that position and make it a political one and start telling people what to do without that actual temporal authority to do so.

As citizens and voters, people do have the authority to do so. Why should those who want to enact same-sex marriage legislation have the right to have their views represented and enacted, while those who oppose it, don’t?

…it often comes across incredibly arrogant and, to those who aren’t Catholic, it can feel like they’re being lectured and condemned and isn’t at all likely to encourage them to convert their way of life.

Hmmm and I’m sure saying “You’re lifestyle is not only legal, but morally approved in law and society” is going to encourage people to convert their way of life?

sigh Dex, again, you are treating this as a religious issue. Look at the points I made above and refute them. They are not based on religion.

Unfortunately I think there are a lot of people who are unprepared to act as charitably towards the outside world as they ought to.

Allowing unnatural relations to become recognised as marriage, to the detriment of children and the truth, is not charitable to anyone.

Again, I’m asking you, Dex, because you haven’t answered: if polygamy could be legislated (in some form or other), would you oppose it?

 

[MattofTexas]

Ah, we dance the old dance.

As citizens and voters, people do have the authority to do so. Why should those who want to enact same-sex marriage legislation have the right to have their views represented and enacted, while those who oppose it, don’t?

Hmmm and I’m sure saying “You’re lifestyle is not only legal, but morally approved in law and society” is going to encourage people to convert their way of life?

sigh Dex, again, you are treating this as a religious issue. Look at the points I made above and refute them. They are not based on religion.

So did white people truly have the authority to deny black people their civil rights and restrict marriage along racial lines for most of Americas history because they were voters and citizens?

I didn’t know American Catholics had given their stamp of approval to divorce. But since it’s legal and that’s the same thing as approving it morally I’m sure a lot of people will be glad to hear they don’t have to worry about get an anullment.

 

[meltzerboy]

Ok let me preface this with a statement that this thread is not about if it is right or wrong, as we all know where the church stands on the matter, and why she won’t change, and I’m good with that.
What I want to know is why does it matter what people outside the church do?
Regardless of weather there is a same sex ‘marriage’ it will never be allowed inside the church, but neither is remarriage after divorce, and yet me don’t have the expectation that those outside the church will not remarry after divorce, we don’t petition for that to be illegal and it isnt’t a valid marriage as far as the church is concerned?

It just seems like the church is pretty relaxed on when non members do, so long as they don’t try to bring it in to the church, and as long as her members don’t participate so why do we care what same sex partners want?
Please correct me because I feel that I am missing something!

From my perspective, it matters only with regard to the consequences of legalizing gay marriage, such as penalizing Catholic adoption agencies for not permitting gay couples to adopt children or teaching gay marriage as an acceptable and moral lifestyle in public schools. Once gay marriage infringes directly on the religious liberties of Catholics or those of any other religion, the line must be drawn. Another potential consequence, as many have suggested, is that once gay marriage is approved, where does it end? IOW, why not legalize polygamy, incest, and so on, if these unions involve consenting adults? This argument is not without merit, in my view. However, the fact that gay marriage is contrary to the moral views of (some) Catholics, as well as those of other religions, as an intrinsic evil, should not be a major consideration, since that line of thinking would fall under the category of imposing one’s own moral and religious convictions on citizens whose moral and religious beliefs differ. Such imposition may also result in unintentional negative consequences, in which one set of moral principles favored by a religious institution undermines the practice of the moral principles held by other religious groups.

 

[mountee]

Ah, we dance the old dance.

So you equate that with the Pope saying we shouldn’t oppose same-sex marriage legislation, Dex? Can you show me the quote please?

Also, if this is what he means, then the bishops - who are opposing same-sex marriage legislation throughout the world, including himself, when he was just Cardinal Bergoglio! - are actively working against the Pope.

As citizens and voters, people do have the authority to do so. Why should those who want to enact same-sex marriage legislation have the right to have their views represented and enacted, while those who oppose it, don’t?

Hmmm and I’m sure saying “You’re lifestyle is not only legal, but morally approved in law and society” is going to encourage people to convert their way of life?

sigh Dex, again, you are treating this as a religious issue. Look at the points I made above and refute them. They are not based on religion.

Allowing unnatural relations to become recognised as marriage, to the detriment of children and the truth, is not charitable to anyone.

Again, I’m asking you, Dex, because you haven’t answered: if polygamy could be legislated (in some form or other), would you oppose it?

Your first response on this thread was well said, thoughtful, methodical and appropriate. Now this. Others will disagree with me but I do not understand why someone capable of the first response would post this disrespectful, sarcastic and uncharitable response to a fellow Catholic. Please try too use your bright mind in a more positive way. I have always believed if you can’t make your point without sarcasm, if it can’t stand on its own, it has no value.

 

[jonathan_hili]

So did white people truly have the authority to deny black people their civil rights and restrict marriage along racial lines for most of Americas history because they were voters and citizens?

I didn’t know American Catholics had given their stamp of approval to divorce. But since it’s legal and that’s the same thing as approving it morally I’m sure a lot of people will be glad to hear they don’t have to worry about get an anullment.

White people obviously didn’t have the authority to deny black people rights to marriage. The restriction, if you remember, was based on the (false) presumption that black people were not fully human. If this were true, than the denial of marriage would make sense. Why? Because marriage is between human beings, male and female. Now, if you can demonstrate that men are actually women, and women are actually men, I’ll concede same-sex marriage.

Whether Catholics approve something or not is not the point: society does. Divorce is morally acceptable now and quite common - it wasn’t 80 years ago. My point is that if you legalise something it becomes morally acceptable to the society. This makes it more difficult for people to recognise true morality because of the way their consciences will be formed.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Your first response on this thread was well said, thoughtful, methodical and appropriate. Now this. Others will disagree with me but I do not understand why someone capable of the first response would post this disrespectful, sarcastic and uncharitable response to a fellow Catholic. Please try too use your bright mind in a more positive way. I have always believed if you can’t make your point without sarcasm, if it can’t stand on its own, it has no value.

Haha I know, Mountee, but Dex and I have been going over this issue a fair bit on another forum, that’s why the sarcasm - and it’s only a little sarcasm at the beginning.

If I truly disrespected Dex, I wouldn’t be in dialogue with him.

 

[DexUK]

Ah, we dance the old dance.

So you equate that with the Pope saying we shouldn’t oppose same-sex marriage legislation, Dex? Can you show me the quote please?

Also, if this is what he means, then the bishops - who are opposing same-sex marriage legislation throughout the world, including himself, when he was just Cardinal Bergoglio! - are actively working against the Pope.

As citizens and voters, people do have the authority to do so. Why should those who want to enact same-sex marriage legislation have the right to have their views represented and enacted, while those who oppose it, don’t?

Hmmm and I’m sure saying “You’re lifestyle is not only legal, but morally approved in law and society” is going to encourage people to convert their way of life?

sigh Dex, again, you are treating this as a religious issue. Look at the points I made above and refute them. They are not based on religion.

Allowing unnatural relations to become recognised as marriage, to the detriment of children and the truth, is not charitable to anyone.

Again, I’m asking you, Dex, because you haven’t answered: if polygamy could be legislated (in some form or other), would you oppose it?

The problem (for other people) with your points is that they are all rooted in our faith. Now that’s absolutely fine for us, but just because we say we have the right to determine what is and isn’t good for other people doesn’t mean they’re going to agree with us.

Nothing is to stop anyone from taking part in a debate - that’s what democracy is all about. But it steps over a line when one party starts telling the other party how to think and, more particularly, what not to think, and that’s what some of our number tend to do to those who are not of our number. Many people on this site will complain about being told what to think by the ‘other side’ too. And I would support them if that were the case as well. But we cannot go around imposing our world view on others who simply don’t agree with it. And remember, even if it’s available, same-sex marriage isn’t going to be imposed on us: nobody can force us to contract same-sex marriages because that’s within the purview of our religious belief, over which no law has jurisdiction and, indeed, in the USA is specifically protected under the Constitution.

Someone will, no doubt, come back and say “but it’s the natural law, blah blah blah”… except the concept of the ‘natural law’ is that which was developed by us. It is an appeal to something that is purportedly outside specific doctrine that was, itself, developed by people who subscribed to that doctrine. We say that homosexuality is contrary to the natural law because that is what we believe. Others believe differently. And there we have the situation where one set of beliefs comes up against the other and, if people aren’t careful, a whole load of hurt is created when one side (or both) refuses to accept that they’re going to have to agree to differ.

If we were truly tolerant, we would teach but we wouldn’t lecture, we would correct but we wouldn’t condemn, and if we were ignored we wouldn’t shout and appeal to a righteousness that appears to the other side to be of our own making to try to back up our argument. All we end up doing is looking uncharitable, judgemental and arrogantly deaf to other people’s concerns. We simply don’t do a good job of it.

Nobody has yet made, to me, a convincing argument as to why non-Catholics shouldn’t live by their own morals, provided they’re not preventing us Catholics living by our morals. Nobody has yet persuaded me that same-sex-marriage, that won’t be used by Catholics (since we don’t believe in it) will, if used by others, will have any effect on our own marriages. If it were so simple, it would be easy and everyone would believe as we do. Clearly they don’t, and I tend to believe that people who don’t agree with us aren’t not agreeing because they’re wilfully rejecting us or spiting us, but because our arguments - that come from our religious point of view - simply don’t make sense to them. We appear to them to be talking a totally indecipherable language, and all they can hear is condemnation and all they perceive is hate and unhealthy obsession about what people over and above the members of our own community do in bed. They perceive that, even if we don’t think we mean it that way.

It’s time we either talked a different language or, alternatively, in the absence of that we stopped talking about it at all because it’s getting us nowhere and actually doing us damage.

 

[Theophorus]

So did white people truly have the authority to deny black people their civil rights and restrict marriage along racial lines for most of Americas history because they were voters and citizens?

I didn’t know American Catholics had given their stamp of approval to divorce. But since it’s legal and that’s the same thing as approving it morally I’m sure a lot of people will be glad to hear they don’t have to worry about get an anullment.

Dear MattofTexas,

Gay ‘marriage’ cannot be equated to interracial marriage, marriage reflects the biological complementarity of man and woman, regardless of race. The relationship between two people of the same gender can no more be called a marriage than we can call everything with four legs a table, even when its a dog rather than a horse.

 

[DexUK]

If I truly disrespected Dex, I wouldn’t be in dialogue with him.

I’m glad to hear it!

 

[Theophorus]

.

Someone will, no doubt, come back and say “but it’s the natural law, blah blah blah”… except the concept of the ‘natural law’ is that which was developed by us. It is an appeal to something that is purportedly outside specific doctrine that was, itself, developed by people who subscribed to that doctrine. We say that homosexuality is contrary to the natural law because that is what we believe. Others believe differently. And there we have the situation where one set of beliefs comes up against the other and, if people aren’t careful, a whole load of hurt is created when one side (or both) refuses to accept that they’re going to have to agree to differ.

Natural Law is precisely that- natural. It reflects nature not Catholic belief per se, that the two usually agree means that Catholic practice generally reflects observed reality not the other way around. We didn’t invent it, rather it has its roots in pagan greek philosophy which reflects upon the order found in reality. It is only in the last hundred years or so that non-catholics have begun to reject natural law arguments in favour of law solely by convention.

 

[meltzerboy]

Natural Law is precisely that- natural. It reflects nature not Catholic belief per se, that the two usually agree means that Catholic practice generally reflects observed reality not the other way around. We didn’t invent it, rather it has its roots in pagan greek philosophy which reflects upon the order found in reality. It is only in the last hundred years or so that non-catholics have begun to reject natural law arguments in favour of law solely by convention.

However, what is so “holy” about natural law, if, as you say, “it has its roots in pagan greek philosophy”? Or “observed reality”?

 

[DexUK]

Natural Law is precisely that- natural. It reflects nature not Catholic belief per se, that the two usually agree means that Catholic practice generally reflects observed reality not the other way around. We didn’t invent it, rather it has its roots in pagan greek philosophy which reflects upon the order found in reality. It is only in the last hundred years or so that non-catholics have begun to reject natural law arguments in favour of law solely by convention.

Well, to be fair, if I want a law about something, natural or not, my first port of call isn’t going to be some pagan practically prehistoric Greeks who, let’s be honest, had some very funny ideas about gods living upon the top of a mountain who regularly sired half-gods and flew winged horses, etc!

The ‘natural law’ as we understand it here is something that the Church has inherited from antiquity and developed, tempered and refined according to its own mind. That’s not to say that there’s nothing in it, but that it inevitably contains judgements that owe as much to morals as nature.

 

[MattofTexas]

The problem (for other people) with your points is that they are all rooted in our faith. Now that’s absolutely fine for us, but just because we say we have the right to determine what is and isn’t good for other people doesn’t mean they’re going to agree with us.

Nothing is to stop anyone from taking part in a debate - that’s what democracy is all about. But it steps over a line when one party starts telling the other party how to think and, more particularly, what not to think, and that’s what some of our number tend to do to those who are not of our number. Many people on this site will complain about being told what to think by the ‘other side’ too. And I would support them if that were the case as well. But we cannot go around imposing our world view on others who simply don’t agree with it. And remember, even if it’s available, same-sex marriage isn’t going to be imposed on us: nobody can force us to contract same-sex marriages because that’s within the purview of our religious belief, over which no law has jurisdiction and, indeed, in the USA is specifically protected under the Constitution.

Someone will, no doubt, come back and say “but it’s the natural law, blah blah blah”… except the concept of the ‘natural law’ is that which was developed by us. It is an appeal to something that is purportedly outside specific doctrine that was, itself, developed by people who subscribed to that doctrine. We say that homosexuality is contrary to the natural law because that is what we believe. Others believe differently. And there we have the situation where one set of beliefs comes up against the other and, if people aren’t careful, a whole load of hurt is created when one side (or both) refuses to accept that they’re going to have to agree to differ.

If we were truly tolerant, we would teach but we wouldn’t lecture, we would correct but we wouldn’t condemn, and if we were ignored we wouldn’t shout and appeal to a righteousness that appears to the other side to be of our own making to try to back up our argument. All we end up doing is looking uncharitable, judgemental and arrogantly deaf to other people’s concerns. We simply don’t do a good job of it.

Nobody has yet made, to me, a convincing argument as to why non-Catholics shouldn’t live by their own morals, provided they’re not preventing us Catholics living by our morals. Nobody has yet persuaded me that same-sex-marriage, that won’t be used by Catholics (since we don’t believe in it) will, if used by others, will have any effect on our own marriages. If it were so simple, it would be easy and everyone would believe as we do. Clearly they don’t, and I tend to believe that people who don’t agree with us aren’t not agreeing because they’re wilfully rejecting us or spiting us, but because our arguments - that come from our religious point of view - simply don’t make sense to them. We appear to them to be talking a totally indecipherable language, and all they can hear is condemnation and all they perceive is hate and unhealthy obsession about what people over and above the members of our own community do in bed. They perceive that, even if we don’t think we mean it that way.

It’s time we either talked a different language or, alternatively, in the absence of that we stopped talking about it at all because it’s getting us nowhere and actually doing us damage.

Dex I agree. Consider, Catholics make up about 25% of the population of the US, right? That means that approximately 74.9% of the US population has no moral issue with birth control I jest, but seriously, the vast majority of American citizens think artificial contraception is perfectly morally accecptable. So upon what grounds do Catholics challenge the HHS mandate? After all if the majority’s religious beliefs can be imposed on everyone with regard to SSM (so Catholics, Evangelicals, conservative Mainline Protestants, Mormons, etc.) why shouldn’t the majority’s beliefs be imposed with regard to birth control (almost everyone except Catholics)?

 

[acacia12]

Huh…yet again I agree with what DexUK says on this matter.
I CHOOSE to be Catholic,believe and live a Catholic life to the best of my ability(I’m always learning)
I respect and love my Gay friends and I do not impose my religion,life style on them.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The problem (for other people) with your points is that they are all rooted in our faith.

I’d say, “No, it’s rooted in natural law…” however…

Someone will, no doubt, come back and say “but it’s the natural law, blah blah blah”… except the concept of the ‘natural law’ is that which was developed by us. It is an appeal to something that is purportedly outside specific doctrine that was, itself, developed by people who subscribed to that doctrine. We say that homosexuality is contrary to the natural law because that is what we believe. Others believe differently. And there we have the situation where one set of beliefs comes up against the other and, if people aren’t careful, a whole load of hurt is created when one side (or both) refuses to accept that they’re going to have to agree to differ.

Okay, so let’s assume natural law is all bunk. We shouldn’t appeal to natural law because we developed it. Then how do we judge anything in society. We cannot judge by our faith and we cannot judge by natural law, nor should we expect others to either agree with positions based on our faith or based on natural law. The only thing I see left, then, is might or majority, which is essentially relative morality.

If this is the case, technically, we shouldn’t be oppose anything because morality is relative.

However, I think you’re wrong. I’m glad the judges at Nuremberg resorted to natural law. I’m glad those who wrote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights resorted to natural law. And I’m glad most people can still judge by reasoning upon human and social teleology.

Nothing is to stop anyone from taking part in a debate - that’s what democracy is all about. But it steps over a line when one party starts telling the other party how to think and, more particularly, what not to think, and that’s what some of our number tend to do to those who are not of our number.

Well, I’m not an American, but I’m sure you realise that same-sex legislation is not being voted in by the people but by their political masters. If anything, this is telling people what to think or what not to think.

If we were truly tolerant, we would teach but we wouldn’t lecture, we would correct but we wouldn’t condemn, and if we were ignored we wouldn’t shout and appeal to a righteousness that appears to the other side to be of our own making to try to back up our argument. All we end up doing is looking uncharitable, judgemental and arrogantly deaf to other people’s concerns. We simply don’t do a good job of it.

I don’t know what to say, Dex. Just because we oppose what we believe is unjust and harmful, how does that make us condemnatory? And again, Pope Francis himself did this when he was a Cardinal - he vociferously opposed same-sex marriage legislation in Argentina.

Now, I’m going to be pedantic here, but this drives me nuts:
“If we were truly tolerant, we would teach but we wouldn’t lecture” - who is lecturing? How can you teach someone something right without point out what is wrong?
“…we would correct but we wouldn’t condemn” - in correcting a mistake, you always have to condemn the mistake. No-one is condemning people just the stupid moves for legislation.
“…and if we were ignored we wouldn’t shout and appeal to a righteousness that appears to the other side to be of our own making to try to back up our argument” - shrugs I don’t even know what this means.

Nobody has yet made, to me, a convincing argument as to why non-Catholics shouldn’t live by their own morals, provided they’re not preventing us Catholics living by our morals.

Ummm as we have all been saying: because it’s wrong and untrue. You don’t stand by while legislation that is wrong and untrue is pushed forward. You yourself personally believe it’s wrong and untrue…and yet do nothing. Now we’re talking about same-sex marriage here but why shouldn’t your perspective apply to any laws?

 

[jonathan_hili]

Dex I agree. Consider, Catholics make up about 25% of the population of the US, right? That means that approximately 74.9% of the US population has no moral issue with birth control I jest, but seriously, the vast majority of American citizens think artificial contraception is perfectly morally accecptable. So upon what grounds do Catholics challenge the HHS mandate? After all if the majority’s religious beliefs can be imposed on everyone with regard to SSM (so Catholics, Evangelicals, conservative Mainline Protestants, Mormons, etc.) why shouldn’t the majority’s beliefs be imposed with regard to birth control (almost everyone except Catholics)?

Then, Matt, you actually disagree with what Dex says. He says:

Nobody has yet made, to me, a convincing argument as to why non-Catholics shouldn’t live by their own morals, provided they’re not preventing us Catholics living by our morals.

But the HHS Mandate would prevent Catholics living by their own morals.