Why "Marriage Equality" really means "DEATH TO MARRIAGE"

[DexUK]

So basically, by believing that I should not impose myself on and into the lives of others who are not Catholic, as the Pope himself teaches, I am somehow not a Catholic.

Well I’m happy to be in the good company of the Holy Father in that regard. I guess he’s not a Catholic either.

 

[CopticChristian]

So basically, by believing that I should not impose myself on and into the lives of others who are not Catholic, as the Pope himself teaches, I am somehow not a Catholic.

Dex,

I know you hear, I fear you have not listened…in this very thread, Fix has responded to you and stated…

**The Church is interested in all people. She does not disregard non Catholics. Your position is not Catholic here.

The Holy Father does not support your anti Catholic position. Please do not try and slip that one by.

You must not care about children. You certainly do not care about Church teaching.

There is no way such thinking can be reconciled with the faith.**

Well I’m happy to be in the good company of the Holy Father in that regard. I guess he’s not a Catholic either.

Your joy should be enjoyed however as Fix has pointed out there is no joy in your views as Fix and others have pointed out.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The simple answer is that if they attempted to get married, then they would no longer be in Communion with the Catholic Church. A homosexual Catholic has a choice to make: he or she either lives by the rules of the Church or he or she follows his/her own path and avails him/herself of the legislative opportunities made available by the secular state. That person can’t be both same-sex-married and a Catholic at the same time. It is up to us to convince members of our own flock that what we’re telling them is correct. It’s not up to us to tell those who already disagree with us anyway what they can and can’t do in the secular world. Render unto Caesar, etc.

If our faith and our belief isn’t strong enough to withstand the secular law, then we have to look at how we put across out beliefs. Simply standing on the shore while the tide comes in around us like King Canute isn’t working. We need to build ourselves up higher than the secular water line and be an attractive place for the other people caught by the tide to seek refuge. And if they want to swim with the tide, that’s up to them.

It almost sounds like you’re treating the Church as a club, and homosexual Catholics have to consider whether they want to lose their membership or not. We are talking about the salvation of souls, and it isn’t just Catholics - it’s everyone. And I agree with you that we need to look at how we put across our beliefs to do so more effectively, but do you honestly think it’ll make things easier for (i) Catholics who are torn between choosing legalised same-sex marriage and the Church; (ii) Catholics who are torn between supporting such people in their lifestyles or affirming Church teaching; and (iii) potential Catholic converts from society, if we stand by and let the state legalise a heinous moral obscenity not only against Christian morality but against the natural law? The more we so so, the less we have any moral authority whatsoever and come across as merely retrograde. You hear about lots of people who convert to Catholicism simply because they like the Church’s honest and hardline stance against abortion. This should be the case with all moral issues.

 

[jonathan_hili]

So basically, by believing that I should not impose myself on and into the lives of others who are not Catholic, as the Pope himself teaches, I am somehow not a Catholic.

Well I’m happy to be in the good company of the Holy Father in that regard. I guess he’s not a Catholic either.

But Dex, it ain’t simply not imposing yourself into the lives of others who are not Catholic.

We are talking about legalising same-sex marriage, which involves:
(i) redefining a core institution in society;
(ii) separating children from this institution;
(iii) acknowledging same-sex unions as morally and legally legitimate, thus;
(iv) promoting homosexual actions are morally legitimate, and thereby;
(v) teaching and promoting socially that such actions and lifestyles are legitimate and moral; and therefore;
(vi) any group who opposes this law and these lifestyles is probably a bigot without reason or morality on their side.

You change the law, the change the perception of morality, you change what is allowed in society.

 

[DexUK]

But Dex, it ain’t simply not imposing yourself into the lives of others who are not Catholic.

We are talking about legalising same-sex marriage, which involves:
(i) redefining a core institution in society;
(ii) separating children from this institution;
(iii) acknowledging same-sex unions as morally and legally legitimate, thus;
(iv) promoting homosexual actions are morally legitimate, and thereby;
(v) teaching and promoting socially that such actions and lifestyles are legitimate and moral; and therefore;
(vi) any group who opposes this law and these lifestyles is probably a bigot without reason or morality on their side.

You change the law, the change the perception of morality, you change what is allowed in society.

But the secular institution of marriage isn’t being ‘redefined’. It’s simply that it is proposed that its benefits are extended to those who are same-gender partners.

Children are already separate. Marriage - of anyone - does not presuppose the right to adopt children. Miss Smith can marry Mr Jones, discover they are unable to have children of their own but they can’t just march up to the nearest adoption agency and demand the first child they see and expect to be successful in being granted that child in adoption. Every individual or couple presenting themselves as prospective adoptive parents will be matched to the child and the child matched to them. If they aren’t suitable, the adoption authority will not let them have a child. Therefore the existence of same-sex-marriage will not have any automatic effect on who adopts any child.

The decision about whether SSM is morally legitimate or not resides in the realm of religious belief. It may surprise you to learn that there are plenty of other religious beliefs out there that are quite relaxed about SSM, not least of which is some Judaism (although not Orthodox or Hassidic), many Protestant denominations, Quakerism, some Buddhists, etc. Now obviously we don’t agree with them - we have our own beliefs after all - but if these people are prepared to institute matrimony as a ‘sacrament’ within their own religious convictions then why is the Law to be required to restrict their right to exercise their beliefs? We don’t routinely ask for laws to be made to ban faiths, after all.

Our version of matrimony is already not be affected by their versions of matrimony. We respect the right of others to their religious convictions. We request and frequently require the Law to respect our religious convictions and yet, when it comes to SSM, we are apparently not interested in other people’s religious convictions and would have them legislated against (either actively or by continuing the current situation).

When we ask for respect for our beliefs but refuse to admit that the Law should respect other denominations’ beliefs, we stand out as hypocrites.

 

[90Domer]

I have to wonder if the poster ever raised children? How can a reasonable person not be shaken to his core by the fact some poor kid will be seeing two, or more, men acting as mother and father?

Pope JPII called it a new ideology of evil. It most certainly is evil. The poster only focuses on the emotionalism of the two homosexual persons. No care is given to the children or the rest of society. So, now little kids across the land will be indoctrinated into the false Gospel of “gay” love. If you stand with Christ you will be called prejudiced. If you have concern for the innocent children you are a hater.

There is no way such thinking can be reconciled with the faith.

Sentimentalism rears its ugly head again, as I see it in my own family. The new atheism, really. Worship at the alter of self!

 

[90Domer]

That’s just your opinion. And, indeed, it isn’t shared by the majority of Catholics in the USA, according to polls.

I take my lead from the Pope. In his own words: (translated into English) *“There are already many same-sex couples who live together who deserve a legal solution to questions of pension, inheritance, etc., that might fit into a new legal model”. *Yes, the Pope doesn’t want actual Marriage, but there’s no reason why a legal model shouldn’t exist that gives the same rights. I’m already on record on this site as saying that I’d be happier if the State got out of the ‘marriage business’ altogether and left the sacrament of marriage to churches and the legal protections of partnership to legislation without having the State act as defacto ministers at ‘weddings’ where religions are not involved. But the long and the short of it is, no matter what it’s called, if the Pope can see a solution where same-sex couples are given analogous legal rights such that they match the rights between a woman and a man who are contracted in matrimony (at least as relates to what can be possible with a same gender partnership) then if it’s good enough for the Pope, it’s good enough for me.

Note also that, unless I forget to to do so, in relation to same sex legal partnership arrangements I refer to them as ‘marriage’ not marriage - i.e. I’m using a qualified word with quotes around it, since there isn’t really another analogous word to use.

If people are calling themselves Catholic and say they agree with SSM, then they are not Catholic. They are out of communion with the Church whether they choose to admit it or not.

 

[DexUK]

If people are calling themselves Catholic and say they agree with SSM, then they are not Catholic. They are out of communion with the Church whether they choose to admit it or not.

I, me, myself, I don’t want or need SSM. I don’t want it because it isn’t a sacrament and I don’t want to marry a man because I am a Catholic. (I’d be happy to marry a Catholic woman though, just for the avoidance of doubt!)

In my actions and what I believe I remain Catholic.

However… there are plenty of other people in the world who are not Catholic. About 80% of them approximately. We have no right to tell them to live by our rules any more than they can tell us to live by their rules.

We may want them to live by our rules, but they have to come to us. We can’t make them. We’re not in the business of forced conversions any more.

 

[CopticChristian]

But the secular institution of marriage isn’t being ‘redefined’. It’s simply that it is proposed that its benefits are extended to those who are same-gender partners.

Children are already separate. Marriage - of anyone - does not presuppose the right to adopt children. Miss Smith can marry Mr Jones, discover they are unable to have children of their own but they can’t just march up to the nearest adoption agency and demand the first child they see and expect to be successful in being granted that child in adoption. Every individual or couple presenting themselves as prospective adoptive parents will be matched to the child and the child matched to them. If they aren’t suitable, the adoption authority will not let them have a child. Therefore the existence of same-sex-marriage will not have any automatic effect on who adopts any child.

The decision about whether SSM is morally legitimate or not resides in the realm of religious belief. It may surprise you to learn that there are plenty of other religious beliefs out there that are quite relaxed about SSM, not least of which is some Judaism (although not Orthodox or Hassidic), many Protestant denominations, Quakerism, some Buddhists, etc. Now obviously we don’t agree with them - we have our own beliefs after all - but if these people are prepared to institute matrimony as a ‘sacrament’ within their own religious convictions then why is the Law to be required to restrict their right to exercise their beliefs? We don’t routinely ask for laws to be made to ban faiths, after all.

Our version of matrimony is already not be affected by their versions of matrimony. We respect the right of others to their religious convictions. We request and frequently require the Law to respect our religious convictions and yet, when it comes to SSM, we are apparently not interested in other people’s religious convictions and would have them legislated against (either actively or by continuing the current situation).

When we ask for respect for our beliefs but refuse to admit that the Law should respect other denominations’ beliefs, we stand out as hypocrites.

Dex,

This is regurgitation of all your previous support for Same Sex Marriage. Fix has declared that support in any way for Same Sex Marriage is not consistent with the Faith and now Domer post 129.

If people are calling themselves Catholic and say they agree with SSM, then they are not Catholic. They are out of communion with the Church whether they choose to admit it or not.

Any lurker that comes to these threads looking for explanation and defense of the Faith should recognize when someone is not expalining and defending the Faith.

 

[jonathan_hili]

But the secular institution of marriage isn’t being ‘redefined’. It’s simply that it is proposed that its benefits are extended to those who are same-gender partners.

Really? Then why is it being called “marriage” instead of the actual benefits just being extended? So what you’re saying is that “marriage”, even in a secular sense, isn’t being redefined, although everything that has gone along with marriage socially and legally is being “extended” to include same-sex couples, and the actually word “marriage” is being used to name their union? If you use the name and include all the attributes, what is left of marriage that hasn’t been adulterated?

Children are already separate. Marriage - of anyone - does not presuppose the right to adopt children. Miss Smith can marry Mr Jones, discover they are unable to have children of their own but they can’t just march up to the nearest adoption agency and demand the first child they see and expect to be successful in being granted that child in adoption. Every individual or couple presenting themselves as prospective adoptive parents will be matched to the child and the child matched to them. If they aren’t suitable, the adoption authority will not let them have a child. Therefore the existence of same-sex-marriage will not have any automatic effect on who adopts any child.

Sure, but adoption is a business and it is supposedly done in the interests of the child involved, that’s why no-one has a “right” to adopt a child. However, while in some senses I agree that marriage and children have been separated in society (mostly due to the use of contraception), by saying that same-sex unions are marriages you are telling the public that, indeed, children really have nothing to do with marriage at all. This is the ultimate separation.

The decision about whether SSM is morally legitimate or not resides in the realm of religious belief. It may surprise you to learn that there are plenty of other religious beliefs out there that are quite relaxed about SSM, not least of which is some Judaism (although not Orthodox or Hassidic), many Protestant denominations, Quakerism, some Buddhists, etc. Now obviously we don’t agree with them - we have our own beliefs after all - but if these people are prepared to institute matrimony as a ‘sacrament’ within their own religious convictions then why is the Law to be required to restrict their right to exercise their beliefs? We don’t routinely ask for laws to be made to ban faiths, after all.

I would have thought that the morality of law has resides in the community, not primarily in religious belief. After all, we legislate on taking drugs, drink driving, murder, fornication, etc. If we legalise it, we morally rubber stamp it. Religions can shout up and down about how bad it is but if it’s legal, it’s legal. And children are brought up with the mindset that whatever is legal is morally fine. Again, religions can shout up and down but they just look stupid.

Our version of matrimony is already not be affected by their versions of matrimony. We respect the right of others to their religious convictions. We request and frequently require the Law to respect our religious convictions and yet, when it comes to SSM, we are apparently not interested in other people’s religious convictions and would have them legislated against (either actively or by continuing the current situation).

When we ask for respect for our beliefs but refuse to admit that the Law should respect other denominations’ beliefs, we stand out as hypocrites.

Huh? What has same-sex marriage got to do with religious convictions? It’s you who are talking about religion. I, and many others on this forum, are talking about the natural law and what marriage actually means. We don’t need religious arguments to show that murder is wrong, abortion is wrong, infidelity is wrong. Neither do we need religious arguments to show that same-sex marriage isn’t marriage.

Now, apart from that, you talk about “respect for beliefs”. Well, it’s a one-way street. If same-sex marriage is legalised, then Christian beliefs (on the whole) are not being respected.

Honestly, Dex, we are a social people. It sounds like you’re advocating: “Let the world go to hell as long as I and my fellow Catholics are okay in our shell of a Church”. That’s not the way Christians should live. We should aim to build a moral culture that helps people be more, not less, moral. I guess if I asked you, “Should we try to criminalise (i) pornography, (ii) abortion, and (iii) no-fault divorce?” you’d say “No” because we shouldn’t interfere in the private business of others? Am I right or wrong in that, Dex?

 

[CopticChristian]

I, me, myself, I don’t want or need SSM. I don’t want it because it isn’t a sacrament and I don’t want to marry a man because I am a Catholic. (I’d be happy to marry a Catholic woman though, just for the avoidance of doubt!)

In my actions and what I believe I remain Catholic.

However… there are plenty of other people in the world who are not Catholic. About 80% of them approximately. We have no right to tell them to live by our rules any more than they can tell us to live by their rules.

We may want them to live by our rules, but they have to come to us. We can’t make them. We’re not in the business of forced conversions any more.

Dex,

Please refer to this site…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=134749

that will refer you to this site…

marriageuniqueforareason.org/

What is marriage? Are a man and a woman really essential to marriage? What about the child … and the role of mothers and fathers? Is it discriminatory to defend marriage as the union of one man and one woman? What impact does the redefinition of marriage have on religious liberty?

If you choose not to go then I pray lurkers go and see what it is the Church teaches.

 

[90Domer]

Yes, this is just the start.

Absolutely. And I see in my own family how this push for SSM has affected me and my husband. Rather than having my in-laws respect my and my husband’s belief in the RCC, they tried to change our mind. And they threw every argument at us that they were taught by the agenda. And the MIL continued to normalized the relationship of my BIL and his partner by calling him his spouse. And then she wanted to have our son call his partner uncle and be subjected to seeing two men sleep together in the same bed. And when we put a stop to it, we were the bad guys.

Anyone who says that SS apologists don’t try to influence thinking is living in a fantasy world. If we weren’t so diligent, I could definitely see my young son being indoctrinated by my SS apologist in-laws.

 

[90Domer]

So basically, by believing that I should not impose myself on and into the lives of others who are not Catholic, as the Pope himself teaches, I am somehow not a Catholic.

Well I’m happy to be in the good company of the Holy Father in that regard. I guess he’s not a Catholic either.

If the RCC held that position, there would never have been any evangelization. Look at the relief efforts of the Church in all parts of the world, regardless of the prevailing religion. Seriously, do you really think that little of Catholicism that you would not want to share it with others? I want everyone to reach Heaven, not only those who call themselves Catholic. I want to share the Truth with everyone.

 

[DexUK]

If the RCC held that position, there would never have been any evangelization. Look at the relief efforts of the Church in all parts of the world, regardless of the prevailing religion. Seriously, do you really think that little of Catholicism that you would not want to share it with others? I want everyone to reach Heaven, not only those who call themselves Catholic. I want to share the Truth with everyone.

There’s sharing the truth, and there’s actively trying to prevent others from exercising their free will to live their lives as they wish.

 

[CopticChristian]

There’s sharing the truth, and there’s actively trying to prevent others from exercising their free will to live their lives as they wish.

Expressing thoughts on this CAF is sharing the truth, attempting to silence NARTH, filing lawsuits to force others to accept that Homosexuality is normal is actively trying to prevent others from exercising their free wills as they wish. Standing on the side of Homosexuality and countering Catholic thoughts with arguments that are in opposition to Catholic thought is trying to prevent others from exercising their free will to live as we wish.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So basically, you believe that people will decide they are homosexual as a result of some sort of contagion in society.

Honestly? Really? Do you really think that people will, as a result of SSM, decide that they aren’t going to be heterosexuals any more? Or that children brought up in an environment with two same gender guardians are automatically going to dismiss any notion of ever having a heterosexual relationship?

Do you really think that people are THAT weak willed?

It isn’t a matter of people being weak willed. Whether people are or are not is irrelevant. Giving scandal is one of the cardinal sins as regarded by the Catholic Church. Scandal is acting immorally before others or otherwise promoting or exhibiting immorality because it COULD corrupt another into sin. Jesus Himself said that one who scandalizes one of His little ones would be better off tying a millstone around his neck and casting himself into the sea.

When a society or an individual endorses homosexual “marriage” and calls it that, and encourages the flaunting of what is a profoundly sinful life, it’s giving scandal. From a Catholic standpoint, there’s no other way to see it.

Yes, yes, I know “You can’t impose your morality on others”. Well, we do it in every law on the books. Those who don’t know that don’t understand much about the law, and certainly not about its origins in our system. But even if it was all of secular origin, it wouldn’t matter from a Catholic standpoint because we are obliged to oppose serious evil even in the public sphere. If we refrain from doing it, we, ourselves, share in responsibility for the evil because we enable the scandal and aid in its promotion.

And if some child or some impressionable person sins grievously because of our action or inaction, we share in that sin to a greater degree perhaps than the one who commits it.

So, as Catholics, we need to understand that to the extent we promote, or even fail to oppose, something like the scandal caused by the exhibition of homosexuality, we really are falling into a moral evil ourselves. Given Jesus’ admonition about the millstone, one of the most serious condemnatory things He uttered, we really should not be accepting the public flaunting of sinful lifestyles, let alone favoring it. And we particularly should not be fitting our necks for the millstone rope for something so frivolous and morally empty as “because they want it”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It isn’t a matter of people being weak willed. Whether people are or are not is irrelevant. Giving scandal is one of the cardinal sins as regarded by the Catholic Church. Scandal is acting immorally before others or otherwise promoting or exhibiting immorality because it COULD corrupt another into sin. Jesus Himself said that one who scandalizes one of His little ones would be better off tying a millstone around his neck and casting himself into the sea.

When a society or an individual endorses homosexual “marriage” and calls it that, and encourages the flaunting of what is a profoundly sinful life, it’s giving scandal. From a Catholic standpoint, there’s no other way to see it.

Yes, yes, I know “You can’t impose your morality on others”. Well, we do it in every law on the books. Those who don’t know that don’t understand much about the law, and certainly not about its origins in our system. But even if it was all of secular origin, it wouldn’t matter from a Catholic standpoint because we are obliged to oppose serious evil even in the public sphere. If we refrain from doing it, we, ourselves, share in responsibility for the evil because we enable the scandal and aid in its promotion.

And if some child or some impressionable person sins grievously because of our action or inaction, we share in that sin to a greater degree perhaps than the one who commits it.

So, as Catholics, we need to understand that to the extent we promote, or even fail to oppose, something like the scandal caused by the exhibition, even the elevation, of homosexuality, we really are falling into a moral evil ourselves. Given Jesus’ admonition about the millstone, one of the most serious condemnatory things He uttered, we really should not be accepting the public flaunting of sinful lifestyles, let alone favoring it. And we particularly should not be fitting our necks for the millstone rope for something so frivolous and morally empty as “because they want it”.

 

[GreatergoodGod]

Keep moving the goal posts around, of course real marriage between man and woman is going to suffer. It’s like where are raising up a generation of homosexuals and lesbians.

 

[Publisher]

I seriously doubt that allowing gay men and women to civilly marry their chosen partner is going to prevent any straight person from deciding that if gays can marry, they don’t want to.

There will always be men and women who want to get married either civilly or religously for what ever reason…and if they do not…it won’t be because their gay neighbors down the street decided to marry.

 

[CopticChristian]

I seriously doubt that allowing gay men and women to civilly marry their chosen partner is going to prevent any straight person from deciding that if gays can marry, they don’t want to.

There will always be men and women who want to get married either civilly or religously for what ever reason…and if they do not…it won’t be because their gay neighbors down the street decided to marry.

Publisher,

What we don’t know we can doubt now as you look past to anything you have ever doubted looking to the future without certainty who could say what anyone person will or will not do based on what has not happened. We have the perogative of intropsection and judging what is believed to be right or wrong when the consequences of whatever that may be as it regards us and our progeny and we decide now as if because we do not know and rather than bear the cross of pretended knowledge we make decisions that are in our own best interest and the best interest of our children because that is what we do.