Why does it matter? (Gay marriage)

[Susansmum]

Wow! Ok so thank you everyone for such thought provoking responses!

I guess my original question has been pretty much addressed, but after reading the responses and from my experiences within the world,
The general consensus (for society) seems to be that marriage is something that two people who love each other commit to. It has nothing to do with growing children, because that can be done now regardless of marriage.
People don’t get married so they can have a family. They want legal recognition of what they perceive marriage gives them.
To me, SSM is a symptom, the actual problem appears to be the degradation of what society believes marriage actually is.

The church is not this vocal about divorce and remarriage. Or maybe that is only where I am.

I probably wouldn’t have such a struggle with this if I didn’t have close friends who were actively gay. I understand and have no issue with what the church teaches, I just find it difficult in its practical application as it were.

 

[DexUK]

Wow! Ok so thank you everyone for such thought provoking responses!

I guess my original question has been pretty much addressed, but after reading the responses and from my experiences within the world,
The general consensus (for society) seems to be that marriage is something that two people who love each other commit to. It has nothing to do with growing children, because that can be done now regardless of marriage.
People don’t get married so they can have a family. They want legal recognition of what they perceive marriage gives them.
To me, SSM is a symptom, the actual problem appears to be the degradation of what society believes marriage actually is.

The church is not this vocal about divorce and remarriage. Or maybe that is only where I am.

I probably wouldn’t have such a struggle with this if I didn’t have close friends who were actively gay. I understand and have no issue with what the church teaches, I just find it difficult in its practical application as it were.

Well that’s not quite accurate…

Gay people don’t get married so they can have a family (mainly because they can’t) - it’s more to do with the love they have for each other, the commitment they want to make to each other and the public statement of that commitment. They want legal recognition of what they perceive marriage gives them.

Straight people frequently do get married for the reasons of having a family, in addition to loving each other, committing, making a public statement etc. Of course they already have that legal recognition.

The movement for SSM is a symptom of what same sex couples perceive that they lack in recognition for something they consider honourable. They don’t see a qualitative difference between their relationships and those of heterosexual couples (with or without children). It’s basically down to State recognition. I’ve not met any who are actively pushing to change the Church’s teachings or who demand the institution of new sacraments (or the extension of existing ones) to cover their relationships as well.

In purely practical terms, the movement for the recognition of same sex unions as legal marriage is significantly to do with the way that laws are enacted.

For instance, in Ireland, there are at least 160 different laws (or clauses thereof) that cause rights and liabilities to created in respect of marital partners - from inheritance to legal tenancies to the rights to obtain passports to the presumption of legal adulthood if married before the age of 18 (i.e. to be ‘emancipated’ from the requirements for parental permission for various things) to financial abilities to sign contracts for and on behalf of the partner. The list is practically endless and because these rights and responsibilities are specifically to do with marital relationships, by calling something a civil partnership, the partners are not necessarily granted these rights or responsibilities whereas to legally recognise the partnership as legal marriage automatically takes care of all the civil law matters at a stroke.

If a government wishes to allow homosexual couples to be recognised by law (remember this is simply legal recognition, not moral approval) then it is far simpler and practical to amend one law that automatically amends all the other ones, than amend 160 different laws (which would take years and would no doubt be incomplete). On a purely business-like point of view, it is more practical to amend the marriage law than all these others. But, as I’ve said over and over again, none of it is a commentary on religious morals or requires compulsion on religious authorities to carry out sacramental marriage, since sacraments, for religious adherents, are protected under freedom of religion laws and Constitutions.

We Catholics are not compelled to like any of this - and plainly we don’t, but it has to be said (although it’s not comfortable to hear for many people) that we can’t ultimately force our views on other people. If I were keeping a tally, I would have lost count now of the number of times I’ve read that as a result of the law being extended that Marriage will somehow cease to be. Those who are able to get married now will lose nothing. No rights or responsibilities or benefits will be taken away. Marriage for heterosexuals will be that which it always was. Neither will the existence of homosexual ‘marriage’ cause people to change their sexuality, nor will it lead to polygamous marriage being legalised (I gave a very detailed explanation of why on another thread earlier today) nor will it ever lead to legalisation of such things as bestiality or paedophilia. Nobody but the insane would believe that such a thing would ever happen.

The only reason why SSM ‘matters’ is because it matters to us. And, clearly, we are a part of humanity and we have a right to have our views heard on the framing of laws. However it matters far less to other people and we don’t have a monopoly on what does or doesn’t go on in this world, much as some of us would prefer that we did.

In essence, some things like this which don’t affect individual Catholics (since we don’t believe in SSM ourselves) are just going to occur alongside us. Eventually we’re just going to have to get used to it.

 

[JamesCaruso]

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.

Marriage was here in this land long before there was a United States of America. The government came along and said, we want to regulate this institution. I guess the red flags should have gone up then. What authority does government have over two people marrying each other? It’s a stretch to say so that close relatives don’t marry. It would be easier to pass an ordinance stating that close relatives are prohibited from marrying each other.

So now, we’ve accepted the state’s licensing authority, although it’s a dubious authority in my mind, and now the government wants to take what was not its in the first place, the institution of marriage, but which it intruded upon, and redefine what it is, as if it had any part in its origination. I say, hands off, government, you’re outside the scope of your reasonable powers. Homosexuals can call what they do anything they want, but you government, do not have the right to put your stamp of approval on either side of the issue. If you want to regulate what they do, be advised that the term marriage has already been taken, and if you want to recognize this new institution, you must honor our prior possession of the term and institution and require the homosexual community to come up with another term.

It’s just like two businesses in the same state cannot have the same name. The first one legally registered has the right to it. Is that discrimination? I’ll say it is, a kind of discrimination we need more of in this country, the kind of discrimination that does not give equal rights to everyone to what is mine.

This brings to mind the popular concept of common good or general welfare, if you carry it to the extreme, and we’re not that far from it, then the government has the right to take all our property and money in the bank and distribute it equally to all its citizens “for the common good.” We are already on that path with the taxing authority of the government, and with the right of eminent domain.

We need to get government’ hands off our property and out of our private institutions, because it has gone beyond the boundaries of reasonable need and justification. Marriage would be a good place to start.

 

[edwest2]

But LGBT people are forcing their views on society. Don’t want to make a cake for a gay wedding? You’re sued. Don’t want to provide flowers for a gay wedding? You’re sued.

If there are no moral standards than anything can and does mean anything.

Biology is pretty simple. The male and female have sex organs designed for each other, not woman woman, man man relationships.

By inventing a label called ‘gay marriage,’ you can’t change the facts. It matters because whatever people do in private should remain private, not in the ballot box, not in your face 24/7. In places where gay people have all the rights of marriage, they still want a label. And it’s not black and white.

Does fidelity or monogamy actually matter?

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

Is it really worth doing?

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html

Right now, people around the world are doing anything, and I mean anything they want and for the most part, we don’t hear about it, so why does this get so much play from the media?

Peace,
Ed

 

[jonathan_hili]

I try very hard to avoid accusing individuals of being uncharitable in and of themselves. What I do try hard to illustrate though is how their words and opinions could be perceived as uncharitable by others who have a different outlook to us.

Isn’t that part of what it means to be a Christian? I.e. to love others means to ensure that where we would wish to be loved in such a way they would also experience it lovingly as well?

It’s not good telling someone you’re being charitable when they experience something different. They just perceive a lie and it immediately undoes any good you’re trying to do.

I agree, Dex, that what we say and, just as importantly how we say it, can be perceived as uncharitable. So we’ve got to be careful of how we say things. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t say things. I guess that’s my biggest gripe with your position, Dex, because I know you don’t approve of same-sex marriage, yet you don’t want to publicly oppose it either. I think a Christian has a duty to oppose error and point out the truth.

I was, somewhat providentially perhaps, listening to a talk today by Peter Kreeft on how to vote like a Catholic. During this talk he quoted from Pope Benedict’s address to the European People’s Party in March 2006. I’ll repeat the quote in depth because I think it really applies to the difference between us, that is, your position on how to approach the issue of legalising same-sex marriage versus mine.

The Pope said:

There are three non-negotiables as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. The principal focus of Her intervention int he public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the human person and She is therefore consciously drawing particular attention to three principles which are not negotiable:
(i) [Protection of human life at all stages of development]…
(ii) Recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage and its defence from all attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union, which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilisation, obscuring its particular character and irreplaceable social role.
(iii) [Protection of the right of parents to educate their own child]…

(emphasis added)

The Pope then goes on to say:

These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith. They are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity. The Church’s action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character but is addressed to all people, prescinding from any religious affiliation they may have. Such action is all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood because this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice itself.

(emphasis added)

And this is where I believe you really need to look hard at what the Church is calling us to do, Dex. We are not being called to sit by and ignore the issue, or let it pass without raising an objection. The Pope makes it clear that as Church we need to stand up for the truth.

Yes, I’ll admit we cannot expect everyone to agree with us and want to live according to our moral teaching. Yes, I’ll admit there are instances where some evils need to be tolerated, even under the law, for everyone’s betterment. Yes, I’ll admit we need to preach the truth in love and be tolerant of whose who wish to live differently.

But I will not admit that a Catholic person, honest with himself, is morally excused from professing the truth of the Gospel and these matters of human nature (in ordinary circumstances, especially those prevalent in the West). I will not admit that a Catholic person, honest with himself, can equate the Church’s truth on these matters with “private truth” that should have no currency in the public sphere. Finally, I will not admit that a Catholic person, honest with himself, is free to dissent from this moral teaching regardless of what his conscience may say. (As Peter Kreeft said in the talk - and I recommend everyone hear it, it was a great one: catholicaudio.blogspot.com/2008/10/peter-kreeft-voting-as-catholic.html - our conscience is not our moral road map, but our moral eyesight through which we see things morally, but we also need a road map to guide us rightly along the way.)

 

[90Domer]

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.

Because the poor guy is losing patience and opinions like these are getting old. When I see multiple posts with the exact same opinion, I start to wonder if people are getting paid to stir up trouble. And I would not be surprised if they are!

 

[90Domer]

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?

JH, you will never get that answer because he knows it’s just the very next (close) step after the acceptance of SSM.

 

[fix]

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!

The Catholic Church is concerned with all of society not just formal members of Her Church. Children have rights. That alone is more than enough to warrant grave concern about these illicit practices.

 

[90Domer]

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.

SSM is not a civil rights issue. What civil rights are being denied. Just because some people don’t like the choice that they have doesn’t mean we have the redefine a whole institution because “it’s not fair” to them that they don’t like their choice.

 

[jonathan_hili]

JH, you will never get that answer because he knows it’s just the very next (close) step after the acceptance of SSM.

I know, I’ve asked about five times now, and I doubt I’ll get the answer.

Truthfully, if you’re going to be consistent, you have to say: “Yes, if people in society want polygamy, I as a Catholic won’t stand against it”, since you are saying the same thing about same-sex marriage.

But the issue of same-sex marriage is highly emotional and that’s what seems to get the pundits from Catholic sympathisers. Yet nobody is showing any emotional sympathy for polygamists, which is a bit unfair.

 

[SnakeMauler]

I personally don’t see a problem with people openly acting on homosexual urges. In fact, I’d LIKE for there to be more homosexuals. Its hard enough to find an interesting woman worth putting time into, so less competition would be good.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I personally don’t see a problem with people openly acting on homosexual urges. In fact, I’d LIKE for there to be more homosexuals. Its hard enough to find an interesting woman worth putting time into, so less competition would be good.

Man, you must have a hard time picking up chicks if that’s what you’re resorting to! :hammering:

 

[DexUK]

JH, you will never get that answer because he knows it’s just the very next (close) step after the acceptance of SSM.

I would thank you not to pretend that you know what’s going on inside my head or what I know or do not know.

I have said that I don’t often get offended: this is one of the things that does offend me. You aren’t me, and I presume you aren’t psychic, so please don’t speak for me, and certainly not in such a way as to paint a deliberately bad picture of me. That is particularly dishonest.

Thank you.

Oh, and I did answer the question about polygamy, at substantial length, although it may now be on a thread that is locked or removed. I’m not responsible for that if it is!

 

[Theophorus]

I personally don’t see a problem with people openly acting on homosexual urges. In fact, I’d LIKE for there to be more homosexuals. Its hard enough to find an interesting woman worth putting time into, so less competition would be good.

While that is one of the most original arguments I’ve ever heard, homosexuality refers to both men and women, so there’s no guarantee you’d have less competition.

 

[John_Freeman]

I haven’t bothered to read through the whole thread, but my simplest answer is this: if civil homosexual unions are legalized, then the government will try to force it on religious institutions, much like they’re trying to do with the HHS mandate. I’m sure there are other good arguments raised by different posters on the thread, so those too.

 

[jonathan_hili]

I would thank you not to pretend that you know what’s going on inside my head or what I know or do not know.

I have said that I don’t often get offended: this is one of the things that does offend me. You aren’t me, and I presume you aren’t psychic, so please don’t speak for me, and certainly not in such a way as to paint a deliberately bad picture of me. That is particularly dishonest.

Thank you.

Oh, and I did answer the question about polygamy, at substantial length, although it may now be on a thread that is locked or removed. I’m not responsible for that if it is!

Sorry Dex, I didn’t mean that, only that I read your answer: it was long and detailed. But you never really answered the question. All you said, in sum, was that polygamy couldn’t be legislated, which I think is nonsense since it is legal now in some countries and has been in the past, and I’m sure, if lawyers tried really hard and were paid lots and lots of money, they could do it.

The question is: would you not oppose such legislation if it came up?

 

[jonathan_hili]

I haven’t bothered to read through the whole thread, but my simplest answer is this: if civil homosexual unions are legalized, then the government will try to force it on religious institutions, much like they’re trying to do with the HHS mandate. I’m sure there are other good arguments raised by different posters on the thread, so those too.

I don’t know if that’s true, but I’m sure there will be some kind of legal penalty if an individual or group tries to circumvent, avoid or refuse to obey this law.

I think the situation may be similar to what happened with abortion. Here in Victoria, Australia, if a woman goes to get an abortion at a Catholic hospital, they can legally refuse her (unless she is in an “emergency” situation, where doctors regardless of their conscience have no right legally to refuse an abortion) but they must refer her to an abortion provider, or else face fiscal penalties. I think the same thing will happen. If a same-sex couple wishing to get married approaches a church, organisation, reception, bakery, etc. for accommodation for their wedding, if this group or individual refuses, they would probably have to satisfy the request in an indirect way.

 

[fix]

I know, I’ve asked about five times now, and I doubt I’ll get the answer.

Truthfully, if you’re going to be consistent, you have to say: “Yes, if people in society want polygamy, I as a Catholic won’t stand against it”, since you are saying the same thing about same-sex marriage.

But the issue of same-sex marriage is highly emotional and that’s what seems to get the pundits from Catholic sympathisers. Yet nobody is showing any emotional sympathy for polygamists, which is a bit unfair.

People that support so called SSM do not see it as a serious evil. For some reason they view polygamy as wrong, but truthfully polygamy objectively is less immoral than SSM according Aquinas and others.

 

[jonathan_hili]

People that support so called SSM do not see it as a serious evil. For some reason they view polygamy as wrong, but truthfully polygamy objectively is less immoral than SSM according Aquinas and others.

If that’s what Aquinas said, I think he’s wrong, though I can understand why it might be considered less immoral.

I think a lot of people shy away from supporting polygamy or even giving tolerance to it because it is not socially acceptable and/or they don’t know any polygamists and aren’t emotionally involved.

It’s funny how times change. One hundred years ago, legalisation of polygamy was probably ten times more likely than legalisation of same-sex marriage.

 

[ahs]

I haven’t bothered to read through the whole thread, but my simplest answer is this: if civil homosexual unions are legalized, then the government will try to force it on religious institutions, much like they’re trying to do with the HHS mandate. I’m sure there are other good arguments raised by different posters on the thread, so those too.

This…sort of. Religions will never be forced to perform SS “marriages” (yet) but what WILL happen is that the Church will no longer be able to “discriminate” by preaching against homosexual activity.

Here are a couple excerpts that fit this thread to at “t” (source linked below):

1. Same-sex marriage won’t affect you, so what’s the big deal?

Since marriage is a relationship between two individuals, what effect would it have on the rest of us? At first glance, it sounds like a good question, but a deeper look reveals that since marriage is a public institution, redefining it would affect all of society.

First, it would weaken marriage. After same-sex marriage was legislated in Spain in 2005, marriage rates plummeted. The same happened in the Netherlands. Redefining marriage obscures its meaning and purpose, thereby discouraging people from taking it seriously.

Second, it would affect education and parenting. After same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada, the Toronto School Board implemented a curriculum promoting homosexuality and denouncing “heterosexism.” They also produced posters titled “Love Knows No Gender,” which depicted both homosexual and polygamous relationships as equivalent to marriage. Despite parents’ objections, the board decreed that they had no right to remove their children from such instruction. This and many similar cases confirm that when marriage is redefined, the new definition is forced on children, regardless of their parents’ desires.Third, redefining marriage would threaten moral and religious liberty. This is already evident in our own country. In Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., for instance, Catholic Charities can no longer provide charitable adoption services based on new definitions of marriage. Elsewhere, Canadian Bishop Frederick Henry was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for simply explaining the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality in a newspaper column. Examples like this show how redefining marriage threatens religious freedom.

1. Same-sex marriage will not lead to other redefinitions.

When marriage revolves around procreation, it makes sense to restrict it to one man and one woman. That’s the only relationship capable of producing children. But if we redefine marriage as simply a loving, romantic union between committed adults, what principled reason would we have for rejecting polygamist or polyamorous — that is, multiple-person — relationships as marriages?

Thomas Peters, cultural director at the National Organization for Marriage, doesn’t see one. “Once you sever the institution of marriage from its biological roots, there is little reason to cease redefining it to suit the demands of various interest groups,” Peters said.

This isn’t just scaremongering or a hypothetical slippery slope. These aftereffects have already been observed in countries that have legalized same-sex marriage. For example, in Brazil and the Netherlands, three-way relationships were recently granted the full rights of marriage. After marriage was redefined in Canada, a polygamist man launched legal action to have his relationships recognized by law. Even in our own country, the California Legislature passed a bill to legalize families of three or more parents.

Procreation is the main reason civil marriage is limited to two people. When sexual love replaces children as the primary purpose of marriage, restricting it to just two people no longer makes sense. ( osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage.aspx )