Why don't Catholics fight for a law agianst non-believers recieving communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheTrueCentrist
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheTrueCentrist

Guest
Isn’t it the same thing as gay marriage? We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married. Shouldn’t the state therefore also deny certain people access to communion on the grounds that our definition of that sacrament does not allow them to receive communion?
 
I think you are confused on exactly why there should be a civil law against gay marriage. Homosexuality is a grave disorder that is incredibly harmful for those who actively participate in it. That’s why there is and should be a law against gay marriage.

Just because the church teaches something, does not necessarily mean there should be law criminalizing any behavior to the contrary.
 
Isn’t it the same thing as gay marriage? We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married. Shouldn’t the state therefore also deny certain people access to communion on the grounds that our definition of that sacrament does not allow them to receive communion?
I hope this is a joke. Do you really want the government making laws involving the internal practices of religions?
 
I think you are confused on exactly why there should be a civil law against gay marriage. Homosexuality is a grave disorder that is incredibly harmful for those who actively participate in it. That’s why there is and should be a law against gay marriage.

Just because the church teaches something, does not necessarily mean there should be law criminalizing any behavior to the contrary.
A legitimate response. However if homosexuality is so clearly harmful as you suppose, why is opposition to homosexuality so strongly correlated with religious beliefs? Moreover, why would people with more direct contact with gay people be more supportive of gay marriage?
pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647

Secondarily, if homosexuality clearly leads to some real world harm (i.e. non-spiritual/quantifiable) then I would expect to see plenty of good literature linking the two. However, the preponderance of the literature making such claims is religious in nature.
 
I hope this is a joke. Do you really want the government making laws involving the internal practices of religions?
People who want to outlaw gay marriage certainly seem to want this. I want to understand how the two are different.
 
Isn’t it the same thing as gay marriage? We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married.
It’s not just “our definition.” Society as a whole is harmed when true marriage (that which produces, protects, and defends the next generation) is made light of, and various forms of sexual depravity are made legally equal with it.
Shouldn’t the state therefore also deny certain people access to communion on the grounds that our definition of that sacrament does not allow them to receive communion?
This is an internal disciplinary matter. It doesn’t harm society as a whole, if someone receives Holy Communion who shouldn’t.
 
It’s not just “our definition.” Society as a whole is harmed when true marriage (that which produces, protects, and defends the next generation) is made light of, and various forms of sexual depravity are made legally equal with it.
Why is that view primarily held by religious people then? I contend that the alleged harms do not exist and are merely an attempt to justify a law based on religious beliefs (gays shouldn’t marry.)

As evidence, I present this publication by the AAP and various other major research organizations:
pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349#SEC6
it concludes that homosexual parents have no effect on the health or well-being of children.
 
Why is that view primarily held by religious people then? I contend that the alleged harms do not exist and are merely an attempt to justify a law based on religious beliefs (gays shouldn’t marry.)
There are plenty of Darwinists who share the same view. Species success depends not only on reproduction, but on the stable and continuous protection of the offspring in a structured environment that by its very design provides everything they need to survive.

This is one point where science and religion are in agreement.
As evidence, I present this publication by the AAP and various other major research organizations:
pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349#SEC6
it concludes that homosexual parents have no effect on the health or well-being of children.
Homosexual couples can’t actually have children - it is physically impossible. Any question of how they treat other people’s children is outside the range of whether or not they can successfully reproduce within marriage.
 
There are plenty of Darwinists who share the same view. Species success depends not only on reproduction, but on the stable and continuous protection of the offspring in a structured environment that by its very design provides everything they need to survive.
But the legality of gay marriage does not affect “the stable and continuous protection of the offspring in a structured environment that by its very design provides everything they need to survive.” In other words, gay people are not going to have children regardless of the legality of gay marriage. The AAP paper I cited says that even if gay people do end up raising children, the children are just as healthy and well off as in heterosexual households.
Homosexual couples can’t actually have children - it is physically impossible. Any question of how they treat other people’s children is outside the range of whether or not they can successfully reproduce within marriage.
And the question of whether or not reproduction is a key component of marriage is a religious one. If the fact that they can’t have kids is the basis for denying them marriage it is functionally equivalent to my original posts summary:
“We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married”
 
And the question of whether or not reproduction is a key component of marriage is a religious one. If the fact that they can’t have kids is the basis for denying them marriage it is functionally equivalent to my original posts summary:
“We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married”
Are you admitting that the first humans must have been religious, then, since (obviously) they had children? 🤷 😃
 
remember that thise nations that dont institute religious laws prohibiting homosexuality, abortion, sexual immorality, are nations that does not follow the laws of God and the church, instituted by God
 
Are you admitting that the first humans must have been religious, then, since (obviously) they had children? 🤷 😃
Are you seriously suggesting that non-religious people do not have children? That may make my top 10 list of the most demonstrably false statements I have ever heard.

Disproof:
Christopher Hitchens is an atheist and has 2 children.
Bertrand Russell was an atheist and had children.
 
remember that thise nations that dont institute religious laws prohibiting homosexuality, abortion, sexual immorality, are nations that does not follow the laws of God and the church, instituted by God
So do you believe a theocracy is a superior to democracy as a form of government?
 
Are you seriously suggesting that non-religious people do not have children?
Not at all - that was you, suggesting that only religious people believe that marriage is for the protection and upbringing of children.

I’m glad to see that you know of atheists who think it’s important to have children.
 
Isn’t it the same thing as gay marriage? We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married. Shouldn’t the state therefore also deny certain people access to communion on the grounds that our definition of that sacrament does not allow them to receive communion?
The Church’s opposition is not based on Church sacraments.

Remember, the Church recognizes the validity of marriages of non-baptized persons. These are natural marriages, not sacraments.
 
Not at all - that was you, suggesting that only religious people believe that marriage is for the protection and upbringing of children.
That still doesn’t make sense. I did not suggest that only religious people believe marriage is for the protection and upbringing of children, simply that some religious people do. I am contending that it is primarily religious people that believe gay marriage is somehow harmful to society.
 
The Church’s opposition is not based on Church sacraments.

Remember, the Church recognizes the validity of marriages of non-baptized persons. These are natural marriages, not sacraments.
Then what is it based on?
 
But the legality of gay marriage does not affect “the stable and continuous protection of the offspring in a structured environment that by its very design provides everything they need to survive.” In other words, gay people are not going to have children regardless of the legality of gay marriage. The AAP paper I cited says that even if gay people do end up raising children, the children are just as healthy and well off as in heterosexual households.
Study was flawed.

“A key methodological flaw in those studies is that they compared the wellbeing of children in homosexual households to those raised in difficult circumstances such as single-parent households that resulted from divorce, Cretella said.”

“Another documented consequence of same-sex parenting is an increased likelihood that children of same-sex parents will claim a homosexual identity themselves. Cretella noted that multiple studies have found that homosexually behaving teens and young adults suffer increased rates of depression, anxiety, eating disorders, addictions and suicidal thoughts.”

ncregister.com/site/article/15089

In some studies, children raised by homosexual partners seem to suffer from sex-role confusion.

R. Green et al., “Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison With Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 15 (1986): 167-83; P. A. Belcastro et al., “A Review of Data Based Studies Addressing the Effects of Homosexual Parenting on Children’s Sexual and Social Functioning,” Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 20 (1993): 105-22; B. Hoeffer, “Lesbian and Heterosexual Single Mothers: Influence of Their Child’s Acquisition of Sex-Role Traits and Behavior,” (dissertation, University of California), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1979; D. L. Puryear, “Familial Experiences: A Comparison Between Children of Lesbian Mothers and the Children of Heterosexual Mothers,” (Dissertation, University of California), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1983; J. D. Kunin, “Predictors of Psychosocial and Behavioral Adjustment of Children: A Study Comparing Children Raised by Lesbian Parents to Children Raised by Heterosexual Parents,” Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (1998): (6-B), 3094; G. A. Javaid, “The Children of Homosexual and Heterosexual Single Mothers,” Child Psychiatry and Human Development 23 (1993): 235-48; K. Lewis, “The Children of Lesbians: Their Point of View,” Social Work 23 (1980): 198-203

Studies by Cameron and Cameron have shown a high incidence of incest between minor children and homosexual parents of both sexes. These investigators suggest that homosexual parents may be more likely to abuse their children sexually than heterosexual parents, so although the point is not definitively proven, the available evidence is worrisome

P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents,” 757-66; P. Cameron and K. Cameron, “Homosexual Parents: A Comparative Forensic Study of Character and Harms to Children” Psychological Reports 82 (1998): 1155-91.

Children raised by both biological parents are significantly healthier, happier and better adjusted emotionally than kids raised by single parents of either sex. They are less likely to live in poverty or engage in violent crime or sexual promiscuity and more likely to be successful in school, career, and marriage. Same-sex couples, by definition, would have at least one non-biological parent.

Waite and Gallagher, op. cit., 124-40.

Several of these sentences and references come from the following link.
catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

A girl recounts her experience from being brought up under a same-sex attracted father.

ncregister.com/site/article/191
And the question of whether or not reproduction is a key component of marriage is a religious one. If the fact that they can’t have kids is the basis for denying them marriage it is functionally equivalent to my original posts summary:
“We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married”
At this point, the discussion is about the harm done to children of same-sex people. Now, the number of studies does not in of itself prove a position. However the number does say that we need to look at these studies. Until the homosexual movement can prove their parenting is safe and is as good as heterosexual parents, then children should not be endangered in such an experiment.

We have conflicting studies. So now what?
 
At this point, the discussion is about the harm done to children of same-sex people. Now, the number of studies does not in of itself prove a position. However the number does say that we need to look at these studies. Until the homosexual movement can prove their parenting is safe and is as good as heterosexual parents, then children should not be endangered in such an experiment.

We have conflicting studies. So now what?
The study by R. Green that you mentioned says:
“Concerns that being raised by a homosexual mother might produce sexual identity conflict and peer group stigmatization were not supported by the research findings.”

M. Cretella is a religious activist, she works for NOM, as does Gallagher.
K. and P. Cameron work for the religious Family Research Institute.
P. Cameron was expelled from the APA for non-compliance with an ethics investigation.

Why are the most negative sources religiously motivated? If homosexuality were truly harmful, why haven’t non-religious researches had the same findings?

Edit
“Lesbians choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children.” that you cited found:
"Results revealed no significant differences between the 2 groups of children, who also compared favorably with the standardization samples for the instruments used. In addition, no significant differences were found between dyadic adjustment of lesbian and heterosexual couples. Only in the area of parenting did the 2 groups of couples differ; lesbian couples exhibited more parenting awareness skills than did heterosexual couples. The implications of these findings are discussed.’
 
A legitimate response. However if homosexuality is so clearly harmful as you suppose, why is opposition to homosexuality so strongly correlated with religious beliefs? Moreover, why would people with more direct contact with gay people be more supportive of gay marriage?
pewforum.org/PublicationPage.aspx?id=647

Secondarily, if homosexuality clearly leads to some real world harm (i.e. non-spiritual/quantifiable) then I would expect to see plenty of good literature linking the two. However, the preponderance of the literature making such claims is religious in nature.
The question you posted was why don’t Catholics fight for a law…etc. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a grave disorder and inherently harmful. So obviously, Catholics would not support a law that encourages what they believe to be objectively evil and harmful. Whether or not it actually IS harmful is a separate discussion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top