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

[DexUK]

The assertion that mis-defining marriage will not negatively affect the culture is patently false.

It will indoctrinate children and others into this peculiar ideology.

Sacramental marriage is an ideology. Civil marriage is a legal construct.

It will affect the children in the custody of these groupings.

SSM won’t cause more or less children to be in these groupings. If they’re going to be there anyway, this is not relevant to this argument.

It will affect how the law treats families.

No, it won’t. Heterosexual families would be treated under the law exactly the same after as they were before. No changes have been proposed in the legal treatment of families as they exist in law now.

It will affect how the schools teach about families and social mores.

Granted. Schools will teach that the law allows for legal, but not religious, unions between two people and that there are rights and responsibilities that the partners have in these unions towards each other. Currently schools teach that these legal rights and responsibilities are only available to heterosexual people. Meanwhile religions will teach about sin and chastity. Religious schools will teach about sin and chastity. If you want your children to receive a religion-specific education, then send them to a religion-specific school. That’s what they’re there for.

It will affect how people form their consciences.

People form their consciences based on their religious beliefs. Religions will be free to continue to form and inform the consciences of their adherents, as they have always done.

I could go on but any person who thinks more deeply than the usual shallow emotionalistic
facile agitprop will immediately see the grave harm that is coming.

There will be no harm. Catholics will continue to believe that chastity is the ideal for all non sacramentally married people and that those who do not follow that rule will continue to be sinners if they are Catholic. Those who are not Catholic are not subject to the rules of Mortal Sin since they are not bound by the Church. Families will continue to exist. Men and women will continue to celebrate their nuptial Masses in Catholic churches. They will continue to believe in God. Priests will continue to preach the Gospel to their flocks. Good and holy people will continue to set an example to the world that is attractive enough to encourage non-Catholics to seek to enter the fold.

SSM won’t apply to Catholics because Catholics don’t believe in it. No Catholic will be harmed by it, their faith will be undimmed, their families will continue to be guided by their parents… The world will continue to turn on its axis and the sky will stay where it is. But the Catholics who expend so much energy opposing this subject now will be neglecting the other areas of their faith where they could do so much more good for the rest of the world. These people, and, yes, that includes some who are ordained, are unable to see past the end of their distaste for the activities of people who aren’t and will never be Catholics. They preach at them and condemn them and rant and rail… to no avail. It doesn’t attract people to the faith. It turns them off.

Nobody is asking you to ‘turn to the dark side’, you are not being told that you should become homosexual. You are simply being asked to recognise that other people are settled in that they don’t want to live by the same rules that you do and that they just want to be left alone. If you think they’re sinning gravely, then so be it. But, as the Holy Father said, it’s not the priest’s job to intrude into the private lives of other people. It’s not going to have much, if any, real life effect on us, so we really shouldn’t be going hammer and tongs at it. I have illustrated what people can do to avoid the subject if they wish to in relation to childrens’ education. Other people may want their children educated in a different way. We do not have a right to prevent them from doing that.

This isn’t ‘agitprop’. This is simple logic. Population A has a set of rights. Population B doesn’t. The law extends the rights of Population A to Population B. Population A still has the rights it always had. Population B now enjoys them as well. Nothing has affected Population A. Simple, plain, unarguable logic. Anybody who denies that is lying. You don’t have to like that Population B has these rights, but if you’re not part of Population B, it really shouldn’t matter to you. Just ignore it.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The assertion that mis-defining marriage will not negatively affect the culture is patently false.

It will indoctrinate children and others into this peculiar ideology.

Sacramental marriage is an ideology. Civil marriage is a legal construct.

Ayyya! Dex, how is civil law not tied with ideology? By legalising same-sex marriage the government is telling society not only that homosexuality and homosexual unions are legal, but they are equivalent to heterosexual ones (which they patently are not) and that they are morally good or at least permissible (which is doubtful). I’m neither a smoker nor a fast driver, but look at the way such people are treated with in society: smoking cigarettes is probably seen as worse than adultery. Why? Because of all the legal and media pressure to stop smoking, and hardly anything is said about adultery (is it even still illegal???). Similarly, when same-sex marriage becomes civil legalising, it becomes a norm, then morally acceptable, then morally promoted, then fie on you if you try to speak against it publicly.

SSM won’t cause more or less children to be in these groupings. If they’re going to be there anyway, this is not relevant to this argument.

Sure, but that’s part of the point. It’s difficult now to speak against homosexual couples adopting. How hard do you think it’s going to be when same-sex marriage is legalised wholesale. “Well, if they can marry, why can’t they adopt children?” What is the Church to do then with Her adoption centres?

No, it won’t. Heterosexual families would be treated under the law exactly the same after as they were before. No changes have been proposed in the legal treatment of families as they exist in law now.

Patently false. Already legalising same-sex unions as marriages in itself changes the law with regards to families, as now same-sex marriages are legally recognised as families. No changes have been proposed yet but I wouldn’t hold my breath…

Granted. Schools will teach that the law allows for legal, but not religious, unions between two people and that there are rights and responsibilities that the partners have in these unions towards each other. Currently schools teach that these legal rights and responsibilities are only available to heterosexual people. Meanwhile religions will teach about sin and chastity. Religious schools will teach about sin and chastity. If you want your children to receive a religion-specific education, then send them to a religion-specific school. That’s what they’re there for.

“Miss, why are same-sex couples allowed to be married but the Catholic Church says they are not?”
“Well, Johnny, you see people have different opinions, some are right and some are wrong.”
“Oh, does that mean the law is wrong?”
“No, Johnny, the law is not wrong.”
“Oh, does that mean the Catholic Church is wrong?”
Hmmm…

People form their consciences based on their religious beliefs. Religions will be free to continue to form and inform the consciences of their adherents, as they have always done.

Again, patently false. Social factors, such as the media, law and parental influence, probably have just as great an effect - if not greater - in forming consciences than religion. These factors will not only recognise but probably begin to promote same-sex marriages and lifestyles as a norm and morally acceptable.

I don’t know why, Dex, but you seem to bifurcate between religion and civil law, as if never the twain shall meet. However, civil law has a great influence on religion through its influence on religious people. Do you honestly believe that many Catholics would contracept or have recourse to abortion today if it were not civilly legal? Legalising something makes it morally acceptable: this is hard to fight.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Again, Dex, I understand the pastoral approach you’re taking. However, it tends to approach Catholics as if they and their faith live hermetically sealed away in the Church, unaffected by society.

“SSM won’t apply to Catholics because Catholics don’t believe in it. No Catholic will be harmed by it, their faith will be undimmed, their families will continue to be guided by their parents.”

Since that hardly happens now for a great majority of Catholics, I’m not very hopeful!

“But the Catholics who expend so much energy opposing this subject now will be neglecting the other areas of their faith where they could do so much more good for the rest of the world.”

Sure, there are lots of areas of the faith to expend energy on, and I agree that we shouldn’t focus on just one social issue. After all, there is the scourge of abortion, rampant sexual immorality, lack of charity, etc. We should focus on these too, and I think Catholics generally do as well.

Now, this is where I have a HUGE problem:

“You are simply being asked to recognise that other people are settled in that they don’t want to live by the same rules that you do and that they just want to be left alone…
This isn’t ‘agitprop’. This is simple logic. Population A has a set of rights. Population B doesn’t. The law extends the rights of Population A to Population B. Population A still has the rights it always had. Population B now enjoys them as well. Nothing has affected Population A. Simple, plain, unarguable logic. Anybody who denies that is lying. You don’t have to like that Population B has these rights, but if you’re not part of Population B, it really shouldn’t matter to you. Just ignore it.”

I thought everyone followed the same rules, i.e. the law. On this logic, do you approve of Shar’ia Law being instituted in the UK, US or anywhere else? After all, it only applies to Muslims and we should be simply “asked to recognise that other people are settled in that they don’t want to live by the same rules that [we] do and that they just want to be left alone”. That sounds fair, doesn’t it?

Lastly, I don’t like it because every person, not only Catholics, is God’s child. It is neither just nor charitable to sit inside the Church and say, “Oh well, to hell with you and your lifestyles, because I’m okay!” That is why we have to oppose unjust laws: they create an environment and culture where it becomes very easy to sin and do evil. As I said elsewhere, this is a matter of natural law, and by promoting the violation of such law we are making it easier for people to go against God and send their souls to hell.

Frankly, we need to oppose same-sex marriage because it is not true. Any time a lie is endorsed by the general population and legislated in law, it becomes more difficult for society to see the truth on the issue. Look at pornography and the way bodies are viewed in our society and how this lie makes it difficult for us to see the truth about the human person. Or look at easy divorce and how this lie makes it difficult for us to see the indissoluble bond of marriage. Similarly, the lie of same-sex marriage will make it more difficult for people to see the truth of male and female complementarity and what has been naturally ordained for marriage.

 

[CopticChristian]

Please - if you’re going to address the points I raise, talk TO me, not ABOUT me. It’s rude to talk about someone behind their back. It’s even ruder to talk about them in front of their face.

Now, as for:

It is clearly NOT the same thing as anti-semitism which is an inhuman action by one or more ‘types’ of people against another ‘type’ of person. In the case of anti-semitism, it would be Gentiles against Jews: at which point it IS my business, since I would be a Gentile. I would be speaking out against it to my own people.

Take then domestic violence: since violence causes harm to people asking for assistance from the State, it is demonstrably society’s business to legislate against that harm taking place.

The lack of SSM provision for people who don’t share our religious convictions results, in certain circumstances, from harm befalling people in same sex relationships. If they want to seek legislative protection against that harm, then it is not my job to oppose it, since I am not involved in it. And, if I did actively oppose the legislation, I would be involving myself in the private lives of other people and materially obstructing the removal of harmful situations to those people.

And if people suggest that I as a Catholic should not support same-sex marriage, then they’d be right: as a Catholic I don’t want to be same-sex ‘married’ - and if I did then contract a civil same-sex ‘marriage’, I’d no longer be a Catholic anyway.

The opposition to SSM for non-Catholic non-religious people is stupid. It is analogous to white people opposing the right of ethnic minority people marrying - which has happened in the past, when non-white people were considered to be less than human. To me it appears to many that by our opposition we give the impression that we think that people who are homosexual are also less than human.

We have no right interposing ourselves between people who are not of our beliefs in the first place.

A compassionate humble Church does not seek to throw its weight around. If it wants to encourage people to think the way it thinks, it does it by example. It shows the world what it is like to love people and where the joy is in that. It doesn’t beat them over the head with accusations of being evil or insult their humanity. It follows the example of our Holy Father in reaching out and embracing ALL people, not just those of our own faith.

To those who say denying civil rights to others is somehow a ‘loving’ thing to do, then I say that’s balderdash. I say it’s obstructive and that it will push people away from God, not attract them to Him. I say that people who are suffering and grieving the loss of loved ones will perceive that we are the same as the people who caused them that pain and suffering. If we want to be agreed with, we won’t do it by hurting or insulting people. My whole purpose in these discussions is to illustrate how closed-minded many in the Church have become and, indeed, how pharisaical they are. And remember, the Pharisees were not at all popular with Christ… I definitely do not want to be counted among that number…

Dex,

The point there is that it is no business of mine because this is activity between two people of the same type.

I may ask what business is it of a subject of her majesty to support what is contrary to Catholic thinking in general and in particular a problem in the United States. Since it is none your business in general for people of two type what business is it of yours to engage in debate as to what the Catholics of the United States should do?

 

[CopticChristian]

The assertion that mis-defining marriage will not negatively affect the culture is patently false.

It will indoctrinate children and others into this peculiar ideology.

It will affect the children in the custody of these groupings.

SSM won’t cause more or less children to be in these groupings. If they’re going to be there anyway, this is not relevant to this argument.

It will affect how the law treats families.

It will affect how the schools teach about families and social mores.

Granted. Schools will teach that the law allows for legal, but not religious, unions between two people and that there are rights and responsibilities that the partners have in these unions towards each other. Currently schools teach that these legal rights and responsibilities are only available to heterosexual people. Meanwhile religions will teach about sin and chastity. Religious schools will teach about sin and chastity. If you want your children to receive a religion-specific education, then send them to a religion-specific school. That’s what they’re there for.

It will affect how people form their consciences.

People form their consciences based on their religious beliefs. Religions will be free to continue to form and inform the consciences of their adherents, as they have always done.

I could go on but any person who thinks more deeply than the usual shallow emotionalistic
facile agitprop will immediately see the grave harm that is coming.

There will be no harm. Catholics will continue to believe that chastity is the ideal for all non sacramentally married people and that those who do not follow that rule will continue to be sinners if they are Catholic. Families will continue to exist. Men and women will continue to celebrate their nuptial Masses in Catholic churches. They will continue to believe in God. Priests will continue to preach the Gospel to their flocks. Good and holy people will continue to set an example to the world that is attractive enough to encourage non-Catholics to seek to enter the fold.

SSM won’t apply to Catholics because Catholics don’t believe in it. No Catholic will be harmed by it, their faith will be undimmed, their families will continue to be guided by their parents… The world will continue to turn on its axis and the sky will stay where it is. But the Catholics who expend so much energy opposing this subject now will be neglecting the other areas of their faith where they could do so much more good for the rest of the world. These people, and, yes, that includes some who are ordained, are unable to see past the end of their distaste for the activities of people who aren’t and will never be Catholics. They preach at them and condemn them and rant and rail… to no avail. It doesn’t attract people to the faith. It turns them off.

Nobody is asking you to ‘turn to the dark side’, you are not being told that you should become homosexual. You are simply being asked to recognise that other people are settled in that they don’t want to live by the same rules that you do and that they just want to be left alone. If you think they’re sinning gravely, then so be it. But, as the Holy Father said, it’s not the priest’s job to intrude into the private lives of other people. It’s not going to have much, if any, real life effect on us, so we really shouldn’t be going hammer and tongs at it. I have illustrated what people can do to avoid the subject if they wish to in relation to childrens’ education. Other people may want their children educated in a different way. We do not have a right to prevent them from doing that.

You don’t have to like that Population B has these rights, but if you’re not part of Population B, it really shouldn’t matter to you. Just ignore it.

Dex,

Sacramental marriage is an ideology. Civil marriage is a legal construct.

Sacramental marriage is a revealed truth. This suggests that those that see revealed truth as ideology are Catechically emaciated.

No, it won’t. Heterosexual families would be treated under the law exactly the same after as they were before. No changes have been proposed in the legal treatment of families as they exist in law now.

It elevates two sodomites with children legal rights that would normally go to biological grandparents if the biologic parent died and the other sodomite was not the biologic parent. Legal rights would supersede grandparent/biologic rights.

Those who are not Catholic are not subject to the rules of Mortal Sin since they are not bound by the Church.

This suggests that St. Paul was wrong when he said…God is God of all and that includes Gentile, Jew, Sinner and not sinner…and that Mortal sin is only a consequence of being bound by the Church because St. Paul says that there are those that are circumcised of the heart and are a law unto themselves with the understanding that all are under God and revealed truth is that by the Church all come to Him. This dismisses the purpose of God and His Church.

This isn’t ‘agitprop’. This is simple logic. Population A has a set of rights. Population B doesn’t. The law extends the rights of Population A to Population B. Population A still has the rights it always had. Population B now enjoys them as well. Nothing has affected Population A. Simple, plain, unarguable logic. Anybody who denies that is lying.

Anyone that denies this has not read the Book of Romans when Paul quotes Psalms…

 

[DexUK]

I thought everyone followed the same rules, i.e. the law. On this logic, do you approve of Shar’ia Law being instituted in the UK, US or anywhere else? After all, it only applies to Muslims and we should be simply “asked to recognise that other people are settled in that they don’t want to live by the same rules that [we] do and that they just want to be left alone”. That sounds fair, doesn’t it?

Good question. Simple answer.

In the UK, some Muslims wish to see Sharia Law applied to the whole of society, including those who are not Muslim. Since Sharia Law is religious law, that would be unjust.

However, some Muslims, within their religious community, will attempt to solve their problems privately under their Sharia principles. What people arrange to do privately is up to them. It has no effect on me if a Muslim who has a legal argument with another Muslim seeks to settle it privately under his own community’s internal code of jurisprudence. He still remains free to refer ‘outwards’ to the National law though, if he desires.

Therefore, if the Catholic Church wishes to enact religious sanctions upon those of its own members who disagree with it on certain matters, then that is fine (provided those sanctions themselves don’t violate National Law, but I don’t think that would ever come to pass, since such sanctions are, essentially, expulsion from the active group of the faithful through excommunication).

So yes, there is an internal and an external forum of rules that people can live by.

We live by rules that are internal to the community within which we live. Those not of our community are not expected to live by our rules, and nor should they be, which is why I remain convinced that SSM will not have any effect on Catholics and sacramental/religious marriage (that conforms with our internal ideology) will not be affected since the secular law does not automatically have an effect on the religious law.

I really don’t know why anyone would argue the opposite, unless they held a belief that what the Catholic Church says should be applied to absolutely everyone, regardless of whether that person is a Catholic or not. The Catholic belief is not a secular law - or at least, it won’t be until everybody in the world is a Catholic, in which case, of course, the laws would then be framed by people who believed the same thing as the Catholic Church believes. But the Church itself teaches that people are free to choose their own beliefs. Indeed, it is one of the fundamental tenets of our faith: that God endowed every person with Free Will.

If you want the world to not enact SSM, then you’re first going to have to convert them to Catholicism. And we won’t do that by condemnation.

 

[fix]

I think “orientation equality” would be more honest, yes, though I don’t think the orientations are equal.

They are not equal. One is a dis-orientation.

 

[LightFromLight]

Would people please explain to me why and how my parents’ heterosexual sacramental marriage will be affected by the two homosexual women on the other side of town availing themselves of a civil marriage?

What effect will it have on my parents by granting them the same legal rights in respect of each other as my parents have? Where exactly is that going to cause ‘DEATH’ to my parents’ marriage? What difference is it going to have on the relationship my parents have with each other?

Why will ‘same sex marriage’ suddenly cause my parents’ marriage that has lasted for decades to suddenly disintegrate? Why is it going to prevent my brother from marrying his fiancé? What difference is it going to make to the legitimacy of my nephews and nieces should they be born?

Why is it any of my business what other people do with their lives and how they commit to each other?

The passing of same sex marriage rights into law is not going to make me suddenly wake up and want to marry the first man that crosses my path. It is not going to turn heterosexual people into homosexuals. It won’t make me wake up and decide that my heterosexual breakfast must henceforth be a homosexual breakfast, my heterosexual car must henceforth be a homosexual car, or that my heterosexual relationships with others must instantly be dismissed and replaced with homosexual ones.

Same sex marriage won’t be ‘catching’!

These arguments are a: ridiculous, b: don’t apply to us because our Church doesn’t and can’t create new sacraments of ‘gay marriage’ and c: just make us look bigoted and intolerant of people who are not part of our number anyway!

You are only thinking of yourself. Gay marriage will badly affect others, marriage is for the greater good of society. Same-sex marriage is completely unfruitful, and will result in more IVF and children losing out on a mother or father. Not to mention it is completely illogical in the first place.

 

[fix]

Sacramental marriage is an ideology. Civil marriage is a legal construct.

I am talking about marriage. That is a natural institution. The State has no right to mis define it. The “gay” ideology is just that an evil ideology. It is political in nature.

SSM won’t cause more or less children to be in these groupings. If they’re going to be there anyway, this is not relevant to this argument.

It will encourage more of it. It should not be happening anyway. Children have rights. This violates those rights.

No, it won’t. Heterosexual families would be treated under the law exactly the same after as they were before. No changes have been proposed in the legal treatment of families as they exist in law now.

It would codify into law a new standard. One that violates children’s rights. It would validate a contrived arrangement that has no basis in human nature.

Granted. Schools will teach that the law allows for legal, but not religious, unions between two people and that there are rights and responsibilities that the partners have in these unions towards each other. Currently schools teach that these legal rights and responsibilities are only available to heterosexual people. Meanwhile religions will teach about sin and chastity. Religious schools will teach about sin and chastity. If you want your children to receive a religion-specific education, then send them to a religion-specific school. That’s what they’re there for.

Basically it would indoctrinate children into this new ideology of evil. It is wrong and against public morals. It usurps parents rights. It violates reason and nature to teach children such nonsense. It is like teaching children it is right to own slaves.

People form their consciences based on their religious beliefs. Religions will be free to continue to form and inform the consciences of their adherents, as they have always done.

The law is a teacher. Teach evil and you will get more evil. This is common sense and self evident.

There will be no harm. Catholics will continue to believe that chastity is the ideal for all non sacramentally married people and that those who do not follow that rule will continue to be sinners if they are Catholic. Those who are not Catholic are not subject to the rules of Mortal Sin since they are not bound by the Church.

As an aside this is false. All humans are subject to mortal sin. This is engraved on every heart. All are bound by the moral law.

Families will continue to exist. Men and women will continue to celebrate their nuptial Masses in Catholic churches. They will continue to believe in God. Priests will continue to preach the Gospel to their flocks. Good and holy people will continue to set an example to the world that is attractive enough to encourage non-Catholics to seek to enter the fold.

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

SSM won’t apply to Catholics because Catholics don’t believe in it. No Catholic will be harmed by it, their faith will be undimmed, their families will continue to be guided by their parents… The world will continue to turn on its axis and the sky will stay where it is. But the Catholics who expend so much energy opposing this subject now will be neglecting the other areas of their faith where they could do so much more good for the rest of the world. These people, and, yes, that includes some who are ordained, are unable to see past the end of their distaste for the activities of people who aren’t and will never be Catholics. They preach at them and condemn them and rant and rail… to no avail. It doesn’t attract people to the faith. It turns them off.

Note well what out Savior said about leading others astray. Support for vice is a serious sin. It is scandal. It causes others to stumble. It is not consistent with the faith or with reason.

Nobody is asking you to ‘turn to the dark side’, you are not being told that you should become homosexual. You are simply being asked to recognise that other people are settled in that they don’t want to live by the same rules that you do and that they just want to be left alone.

Ah the Cuomo doctrine. Personally opposed but… Just like a supporter of slavery would say.

If you think they’re sinning gravely, then so be it. But, as the Holy Father said, it’s not the priest’s job to intrude into the private lives of other people. It’s not going to have much, if any, real life effect on us, so we really shouldn’t be going hammer and tongs at it. I have illustrated what people can do to avoid the subject if they wish to in relation to childrens’ education. Other people may want their children educated in a different way. We do not have a right to prevent them from doing that.

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

This isn’t ‘agitprop’. This is simple logic. Population A has a set of rights. Population B doesn’t. The law extends the rights of Population A to Population B. Population A still has the rights it always had. Population B now enjoys them as well. Nothing has affected Population A. Simple, plain, unarguable logic. Anybody who denies that is lying. You don’t have to like that Population B has these rights, but if you’re not part of Population B, it really shouldn’t matter to you. Just ignore it.

There is no right to evil. The State has no authority to command evil. If the State does such a terrible thing then those who support the unjust laws are liable. We all have an obligation to oppose unjust laws.

 

[90Domer]

Are you serious?

There are no “rights to grant” It is a complete fiction.

It will affirm what is objectively wrong. It is gravely unjust and contrary to reason and the moral law.

This is not only contrary to the faith but it is contrary to reason.

This s a reductionist understanding. It will affect children. It will affect any children such groupings will have custody of and it will affect all other children in many ways including any indoctrination from society adopting what is unnatural.

This is emotionalist propaganda. Any perceived offense is never greater than the moral truth of the matter.

How can any Catholic can hold such an immoral position and claim fidelity to the Church?

You may want to see this:

Also, part of the push for SSM is so advocates can shove it down our throats such that more stories like this will pop up:

seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020743969_floristlawsuitxml.html

 

[DexUK]

There is no right to evil. The State has no authority to command evil. If the State does such a terrible thing then those who support the unjust laws are liable. We all have an obligation to oppose unjust laws.

The State can legislate for what it wants to. Since all Catholics are, of course, heterosexual (!) we won’t be marrying two people of the same gender will we?

 

[fix]

Also, part of the push for SSM is so advocates can shove it down our throats such that more stories like this will pop up:

seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020743969_floristlawsuitxml.html

Yes, this is just the start.

 

[fix]

The State can legislate for what it wants to. Since all Catholics are, of course, heterosexual (!) we won’t be marrying two people of the same gender will we?

The Church is not only concerned for Catholics. That is like saying the Church only wants Catholics not to abort. It is absurd.

 

[fix]

You are only thinking of yourself. Gay marriage will badly affect others, marriage is for the greater good of society. Same-sex marriage is completely unfruitful, and will result in more IVF and children losing out on a mother or father. Not to mention it is completely illogical in the first place.

I bolded the key part. Those that support these unnatural unions only care about the persons forming the union. They do not care about anyone else including the children and the rest of society.

 

[jonathan_hili]

However, some Muslims, within their religious community, will attempt to solve their problems privately under their Sharia principles. What people arrange to do privately is up to them. It has no effect on me if a Muslim who has a legal argument with another Muslim seeks to settle it privately under his own community’s internal code of jurisprudence. He still remains free to refer ‘outwards’ to the National law though, if he desires.

So, you are quite willing in our society, to see different legal enclaves develop that basically have their own law and do whatever they like to enact that law even if it is contrary to the law of the land? What if your wife was Muslim and she did something to contravene Shar’ia Law and was punished by their laws. Wouldn’t it affect you then?

My point is that if you are willing to accept a legal system that contravenes the legal system of the state, you undermine the state’s laws. However, if you want to say that the state’s laws trump a private community’s laws, then you have to admit that same-sex marriage laws will have to trump Church laws on who can get married. See, the Catholic Church, if same-sex marriage is universally legalised, will be in the same position as Muslims with Shar’ia Law.

You say: “if the Catholic Church wishes to enact religious sanctions upon those of its own members who disagree with it on certain matters, then that is fine (provided those sanctions themselves don’t violate National Law…).” But, the sanctions are irrelevant when the law the Catholic Church espouses is a direct contradiction of the state law. You can’t have it both ways.

We live by rules that are internal to the community within which we live. Those not of our community are not expected to live by our rules, and nor should they be, which is why I remain convinced that SSM will not have any effect on Catholics and sacramental/religious marriage (that conforms with our internal ideology) will not be affected since the secular law does not automatically have an effect on the religious law.

Again, I think what you’re saying, while it may sound plausible, is just not supported by evidence. Why do so many Catholics contracept, or divorce, of have recourse to abortion, if state laws do “not have any effect on Catholics and sacramental/religious marriage”? The fact is Catholics live in the world and it is bloody hard not to be part of it. Instead of creating a society that makes it easier for people to follow the moral law, you’re advocating that we stand by and allow it to become worse?

I don’t think anyone’s talking about “the secular law” having an “automatic effect” on religious law or thought, but it does have long-term effects on religious law and thought because it affects individual Catholics in society be they theologians, priests, etc.

I really don’t know why anyone would argue the opposite, unless they held a belief that what the Catholic Church says should be applied to absolutely everyone, regardless of whether that person is a Catholic or not. The Catholic belief is not a secular law - or at least, it won’t be until everybody in the world is a Catholic, in which case, of course, the laws would then be framed by people who believed the same thing as the Catholic Church believes. But the Church itself teaches that people are free to choose their own beliefs. Indeed, it is one of the fundamental tenets of our faith: that God endowed every person with Free Will.

If you want the world to not enact SSM, then you’re first going to have to convert them to Catholicism. And we won’t do that by condemnation.

Marriage and sex being naturally ordained between man and woman is not primarily a Catholic belief but one based in natural law. If you were going to use this line, you would have to say that state sanctioned abortion is okay because it isn’t going to affect the Church’s position on abortion; same with slavery, really. These “laws” contravene natural law and it is the duty of every reasonable and good-willed person to oppose them. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs, and certainly nothing to do with specifically Catholic ones. After all, Muslims and Orthodox Jews and Hindus oppose same-sex marriage just as much as most Christians do.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The State can legislate for what it wants to. Since all Catholics are, of course, heterosexual (!) we won’t be marrying two people of the same gender will we?

So you want to deliberately put same-sex attracted Catholics in that kind of moral dilemma and perhaps jeopardise their souls by thinking it’s okay to get married to someone of their own sex?

I mean, if same-sex marriage isn’t legalised and sanctioned by the state, that may send a message about the state of such a union to those who find themselves same-sex attracted. However, if it is legalised, you are practically inviting people to defy the Church and possibly damn their souls.

We see this with almost every legalised social evil, Dex. Why should same-sex marriage be an exception?

I admire your desire for tolerance, but it will create an environment that won’t be able to tolerate Christian morality (or any natural morality at all, perhaps).

 

[DexUK]

So you want to deliberately put same-sex attracted Catholics in that kind of moral dilemma and perhaps jeopardise their souls by thinking it’s okay to get married to someone of their own sex?

I mean, if same-sex marriage isn’t legalised and sanctioned by the state, that may send a message about the state of such a union to those who find themselves same-sex attracted. However, if it is legalised, you are practically inviting people to defy the Church and possibly damn their souls.

We see this with almost every legalised social evil, Dex. Why should same-sex marriage be an exception?

I admire your desire for tolerance, but it will create an environment that won’t be able to tolerate Christian morality (or any natural morality at all, perhaps).

I see the dichotomy you are attempting to raise about Catholics who are gay and who wish to get married.

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.

 

[CopticChristian]

I see the dichotomy you are attempting to raise about Catholics who are gay and who wish to get married.

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.
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.

Dex,

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.

What you are saying is that this forum, CAF, should change its purpose…as you look up to the left you will see…

To Explan and Defend the Faith…

Those on the CAF that adhere to the Catholic Faith are routinely met by people that adhere to the secular world and propagate for Homosexuality in action…what is encountered is the purpose of this thread, explanation and defense and with that your posture is in opposition.

I rarely see you adhering to this when it comes to sins against Chastity.

 

[DexUK]

This is a rare occasion when I’m willing to respond to you, Coptic, because I won’t permit you to tell lies about me.

You suggest I’m defending sins against chastity and that I’m telling Catholics that it’s OK to do things that are prohibited by the Church.

Nowhere am I doing that. I have, not once, suggested that ANY CATHOLIC may licitly partake in homosexual sexual activities.

I have always maintained that all Catholics are required to follow the rules of the Church and the Catechism.

I will thank you to withdraw that accusation.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is a rare occasion when I’m willing to respond to you, Coptic, because I won’t permit you to tell lies about me.

You suggest I’m defending sins against chastity and that I’m telling Catholics that it’s OK to do things that are prohibited by the Church.

Nowhere am I doing that. I have, not once, suggested that ANY CATHOLIC may licitly partake in homosexual sexual activities.

I have always maintained that all Catholics are required to follow the rules of the Church and the Catechism.

I will thank you to withdraw that accusation.

Dex,

Forgive me. Let me clarify this for you…

I rarely see you adhering to this when it comes to sins against Chastity as it regards Homosexuality in your support of Homosexuals, Homosexual marriage, Homosexuals in the boy scouts, Homosexuals suing florists, Homosexual and transgendered.

Fix, has declared your support of same sex marriage is contrary to Church teaching and in that regard is a defense of a sin against chasity.

I pray that clarifies what I meant to say.