Why Must We Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage?

[toosan1967]

Legalization of homosexual marriage simply continues to widen the breakdown of marriage which was, at least in the previous century, begun with the widespread acceptance of contraception, thereby breaking the link between marriage and procreation. /QUOTE]

Interesting thought. The first thing that would have come into my mind is that contraception’s most useful aspect was that it broke the link between the unmarried and procreation.

 

[ett]

We must fight against so-called “same-sex marriage” because it’s a lie, and it’s something that will further the confusion of gender roles and the destruction of families which are the most basic building blocks of society. It’s not charitable to be content that I know the truth and not want to share that truth with others for the sake of their salvation when I know that they are on a path to eternal spiritual destruction. The traditional family is the domestic church even if people are of a different religion or even of no religion and don’t know it. That’s why Satan is currently launching a direct attack on it. The fact that many don’t realize that this is a spiritual battle doesn’t change the fact that it is.

I agree that it is wrong, but also agree that it can’t be a government law. We are so busy trying to defend religious freedom from the hhs mandate and i feel like it’s them striking back at us for trying to make a government law again the so-called “same-sex marriage”. It’s hypocritical. If we are to reach the people we feel or know are going the wrong way we can’t enforce it by government law, we have to enforce it by influence. Besides, all of those who aren’t Christian are telling us that marriage existed before we Christians came along and had to do more with grouping together than it did of a bond between a man and a woman. I still find the hhs mandate extremely wrong.

I see it more of a bond to a new child, and from that I see that bond with a child can only come from the child’s parents, and there’s no way I want any gay people adopting children. What rights will these gay people get to adopt children from having not a law against their marriage? Will they be able adopt just any child, or will the parents who put them up have a choice? I may have more questions but this is enough for now.

I do see that winning a vote is much more ethical and fair than just supporting a mandate. A mandate, well, is just un-American.

 

[ett]

You feel that you don’t have “any right to tell other non-beleivers how to live their lives.” Yet marriage need not have anything to do with belief in a God. Please follow me…

Why is a government in the business of certifying a love relationship? Some options:
A) To ensure inheritance rights
B) Because the govt must certify every type of relationship
C) Because the govt has nothing better to do
D) Because this type of relationship may result in new citizens (babies) that need to be protected

The only answers that could possibly make any sense are A and D. But marriage is not about A; there are other legal vehicles for inheritance, etc. The correct answer is D; a marriage establishes a “cell” within a society where new citizens are created and formed.

If a marriage has nothing to do with babies, then a government would have no interest in more useless paperwork. Therefore, natural law and civil law both tell us that a marriage must be a relationship that is ordered toward procreation. Otherwise, it is by definition not a marriage.

A side note: I didn’t say that a marriage must result in children. I said that a marriage is a relationship “ordered toward” procreation. Two sterile people are married because their bodies, by design, are still ordered toward procreation, although a deficiency might make children impossible in their case.

Notice how this explanation doesn’t hinge on a belief in God? It’s as simple as biology. Alas, this biological link in the definition of marriage is what our society has forgotten. And if someone disagrees with the procreation link to marriage, then there really is no logical reason to keep a “marriage” from being between 3 or 4 people.

This, what you post here, is really the argument. I hear too often us defending our view on this issue by saying “Marriage is between a man and a woman’” because that statement says nothing at all about a child, unless you take it implicitly.

 

[JimG]

JimG;9367034:

Legalization of homosexual marriage simply continues to widen the breakdown of marriage which was, at least in the previous century, begun with the widespread acceptance of contraception, thereby breaking the link between marriage and procreation. /QUOTE]

Interesting thought. The first thing that would have come into my mind is that contraception’s most useful aspect was that it broke the link between the unmarried and procreation.

Well, yes, that played itself out too. But when artificial contraception was first being pushed broadly, it was primarly pushed as a boon to married people who wanted to control how many children they had.

When the Lambeth Conference approved contraception in 1930, it was seen as something approved ‘for grave reasons’ for married couples–because from the Reformation up until then, every Protestant denomination along with the Catholic Church had strongly disapproved of contraception.

But breaking the link between sex and procreation of course, ultimately freed up sex for everybody, married, unmarried, young, old, teens, and it made fornication a lot less “risky” except that in those first days nobody quite realized the extent to which STD’s would explode.

Breaking that link led to making marriage dispensable and meaningless. And if it becomes devoid of meaning, same sex ‘marriage’ becomes really inevitable.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

I agree that it is wrong, but also agree that it can’t be a government law. We are so busy trying to defend religious freedom from the hhs mandate and i feel like it’s them striking back at us for trying to make a government law again the so-called “same-sex marriage”. It’s hypocritical.

Every civil law is a statement of morality. Anytime you say, ‘this is what is right’, ‘this is what is wrong’, ‘you must do this’, or ‘you must not do that’, then morality is being legislated. Government is in, and very heavily in, by the very nature of passing laws, the business of morality. In general, the biggest difference between religious morality and state-dictated morality was that the state adopts a minimum level of morality necessary to protect society. From the position of the state, i.e. what should the government do, it is obliged do what is necessary to protect it’s citizens. The state’s definition of marriage must be made for the good of it’s citizens, which is the same to say, for the benefit of society.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…
I see it more of a bond to a new child, and from that I see that bond with a child can only come from the child’s parents, and there’s no way I want any gay people adopting children. What rights will these gay people get to adopt children from having not a law against their marriage? Will they be able adopt just any child, or will the parents who put them up have a choice? I may have more questions but this is enough for now…

As more states legalize gay ‘marriage,’ the door will really be wide open to adoption of children by gay couples. In fact, take the case of Illinois which allows civil unions to gay couples, not (yet) same sex ‘marriage’. Rather than comply with new rules that require adoption agencies to treat gay couples equallly when making placement decisions, the Church had no choice but to take itself out of the adoption and foster care business. Sure, the Catholic adoption agencies were receiving state money in exchange for social service, but the requirement to place kids with same sex couples is new, and it is against a religious belief held by the Church that homosexual unions are wrong. This is no secret to the state or to any state official. To expect the Church to make an about face, to suddenly change a long and deeply held value would be asking it to sell its role as a moral leader in exchange for $$$. To acquiesce with the state’s accommodation to gay parenting will be participating with evil, which the Church will not do. It is easy to forget that said agencies served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children.

The bishops on behalf of Catholics faithful to Church teaching are engaged in the religious liberty battle on several fronts. On the gay adoption issue, consider that organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, Family Pride, Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund and National Center for Lesbian Rights and many others have been helping and tracking legislation, judgements, and department regulation state-to-state when it comes to gay adoption.

It is a disturbing direction. You can check this link on pdf format Gay Adoption in the U.S. Facts & Figures. Take a look at the data categories of “stranger” adoption by gay and lesbian singles (wanting to adopt a non-related child), joint adoption by gay and lesbian couples of an unrelated child, and second-parent adoption when the same-sex partner of a gay or lesbian biological parent wishes to become the legal parent.

Florida does not allow gays or lesbians to adopt and Utah approves adoptions only by married heterosexual couples. The remaining 48 states and the District of Columbia permit “stranger” adoptions by gay and lesbian singles.

In addition to Florida and Utah, six more states (Louisiana, Mississippi, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma) do not permit adoption by gay and lesbian couples. *Eight states have statewide affirmative case law granting gay and lesbian couples joint adoption equality—California, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. *

Five states (Colorado, Florida, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin) will not allow a gay or lesbian step-parent to finalize a second-parent adoption. Ten states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Vermont, as well as Washington, D.C.) have codified second-parent adoption for gays and lesbians.

Indeed we are in the midst of a battle, a cultural and religious one in this beloved country of ours. We need to stand up for freedom and behind Holy Mother Church. There is no shame in holding up our Catholic values and we should pray as we have not prayed before for our nation.
,

 

[Stephen168]

you are right. i agree with you completely. marriage is a civil matter.

No, man preceded the state.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

No, man preceded the state.

You are both right. Marriage is both a moral and a civil matter.

 

[Stephen168]

You are both right. Marriage is both a moral and a civil matter.

It is a human matter not a civil matter because man preceded the state.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

It is a human matter not a civil matter because man preceded the state.

If marriage is not a civil matter, then

1. There would be no such thing as divorce. Kind of hard for divorce to be a civil matter if marriage is not a civil matter.
2. Alimony is not a civil matter and cannot be enforced.
3. Spouses no longer would get automatic co-ownership rights of joint property.
4. Spouses would have no right to another spouse’s earnings, retirement or health benefits.
5. Spouses would no longer receive any spousal Social Security benefits.
6. Spouses would not longer receive preferential treatment for inheritance/estate issues. In the case of wills, if no children exist, the estate would go to blood relatives, as there would be no legal spouse.
7. Etc.

Essentially, if marriage is not a civil matter, then the courts would have no choice but to treat spouses no better than roommates.

I’m sure that you know what you are asking for, and the world would be a better place for all of us.

 

[Seeker1961]

I guess my question is: How does a marriage outside of the church affect my ability to practice my faith? People get married outside the Church every day, and they do all sorts of other things that are against the teachings of my faith. None of that changes my ability or my responsibility to follow my conscience and obey Jesus.

I understand being an example to others and encouraging them to follow Jesus-but I hesitate to make the rules of any religion the only basis for civil law. It seems like a door we wouldn’t really want to open. Catholics may not always be a large enough majority in a state or even the country to prevent laws being made only on the basis of a religion we do not accept.

 

[surritter]

I guess my question is: How does a marriage outside of the church affect my ability to practice my faith? People get married outside the Church every day, and they do all sorts of other things that are against the teachings of my faith. None of that changes my ability or my responsibility to follow my conscience and obey Jesus.

I understand being an example to others and encouraging them to follow Jesus-but I hesitate to make the rules of any religion the only basis for civil law. It seems like a door we wouldn’t really want to open. Catholics may not always be a large enough majority in a state or even the country to prevent laws being made only on the basis of a religion we do not accept.

We are not making “rules of any religion the only basis for civil law.” The defining feature of marriage is biological.
A government certifies marriage as a cell where children can be formed and nurtured. Ergo, two men or two women cannot – by definition – get married.
That is, unless you wish to change the definition of marriage. If that’s the case, then there is no reason to keep it to just two people.
See how this is not a Catholic thing?

 

[Seeker1961]

We are not making “rules of any religion the only basis for civil law.” The defining feature of marriage is biological.
A government certifies marriage as a cell where children can be formed and nurtured. Ergo, two men or two women cannot – by definition – get married.
That is, unless you wish to change the definition of marriage. If that’s the case, then there is no reason to keep it to just two people.
See how this is not a Catholic thing?

Marriage isn’t biological, having children is biological. Marriage has been redefined pretty frequently throughout history as well. Marriage is no longer used to increase the size of kingdoms, the woman doesn’t come with territory anymore. Men only have one wife now, and even the Bible doesn’t have that tradition. The woman is no longer considered property either, she now is a person of her own.

Marriage is a sacrament to those of us who believe, but to many in our culture it is a civil contract that gives a couple tax breaks and other benefits. The fact that there are others who do not view marriage as a sacrament does not affect our ability to view it as one-or to view the most important reason for it to be the biological aspect of having children. Those are traditions of our faith, and important-but we’re standing on shaky ground trying to make that tradition into a civil law.

I would prefer to see us use all this energy in teaching others the beauty of our traditions and how they make life more meaningful. Changing people’s hearts and leading them to God is the answer, not legislation. Changed lives will mean that even though the behavior is legal, fewer and fewer will engage in it.

 

[surritter]

Why must it be an either/or thing? We can certainly teach others about the beauty of the Catholic faith. Does defending marriage detract from that?

My point is that we can’t have laws recognizing same-sex “marriage” because there is no such thing. It’s not like we’re legislating something to purposely exclude people.

Marriage is certainly founded in a biological principle: marriage is ordered toward procreation. Before you reply to this, maybe it’s best to re-read earlier posts on this thread about this important idea of “ordered” toward procreation.

 

[fix]

Marriage isn’t biological, having children is biological. Marriage has been redefined pretty frequently throughout history as well. Marriage is no longer used to increase the size of kingdoms, the woman doesn’t come with territory anymore. Men only have one wife now, and even the Bible doesn’t have that tradition. The woman is no longer considered property either, she now is a person of her own.

Marriage is a sacrament to those of us who believe, but to many in our culture it is a civil contract that gives a couple tax breaks and other benefits. The fact that there are others who do not view marriage as a sacrament does not affect our ability to view it as one-or to view the most important reason for it to be the biological aspect of having children. Those are traditions of our faith, and important-but we’re standing on shaky ground trying to make that tradition into a civil law.

I would prefer to see us use all this energy in teaching others the beauty of our traditions and how they make life more meaningful. Changing people’s hearts and leading them to God is the answer, not legislation. Changed lives will mean that even though the behavior is legal, fewer and fewer will engage in it.

The law is a teacher. That is an important way people form their conscience.

Also, when did marriage involve two men? Which historical age?

 

[Stephen168]

If marriage is not a civil matter, then

1. There would be no such thing as divorce. Kind of hard for divorce to be a civil matter if marriage is not a civil matter.
2. Alimony is not a civil matter and cannot be enforced.
3. Spouses no longer would get automatic co-ownership rights of joint property.
4. Spouses would have no right to another spouse’s earnings, retirement or health benefits.
5. Spouses would no longer receive any spousal Social Security benefits.
6. Spouses would not longer receive preferential treatment for inheritance/estate issues. In the case of wills, if no children exist, the estate would go to blood relatives, as there would be no legal spouse.
7. Etc.

Therefore man did not marry until there was a state.

Men and women did not come together, create and raise children until there was a state to license it.

 

[Lampo]

Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.

 

[Seeker1961]

Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.

What about heterosexual married couples who cannot procreate? Are their marriages not valid or somehow inferior?

People who have made a commitment to God and His Church are bound by the laws of His Church. People who have chosen, for whatever reason, not to make that commitment have no such obligation. I know a great many people who do a great many things that are against the laws of the Church, and none of that changes my responsibility to obey those laws or my ability to obey them. Every day people engage in behavior against our values.

We know that we cannot create a law to force people to attend Mass weekly, to pray daily or to follow any of the laws of the Church. We know that we cannot make a civil law to prohibit divorce, we aren’t even trying.

If we truly want to stop gay people from getting married, we’re going about it the wrong way. We’re trying to stop the behavior without changing people’s hearts and leading them to God. As we can clearly see, all that’s doing is developing greater resistance and it’s not leading one person to God.

 

[fix]

The Church has spoken to your points:

From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

 

[estesbob]

What about heterosexual married couples who cannot procreate? Are their marriages not valid or somehow inferior?

People who have made a commitment to God and His Church are bound by the laws of His Church. People who have chosen, for whatever reason, not to make that commitment have no such obligation. I know a great many people who do a great many things that are against the laws of the Church, and none of that changes my responsibility to obey those laws or my ability to obey them. Every day people engage in behavior against our values.

We know that we cannot create a law to force people to attend Mass weekly, to pray daily or to follow any of the laws of the Church. We know that we cannot make a civil law to prohibit divorce, we aren’t even trying.

If we truly want to stop gay people from getting married, we’re going about it the wrong way. We’re trying to stop the behavior without changing people’s hearts and leading them to God. As we can clearly see, all that’s doing is developing greater resistance and it’s not leading one person to God.

You can not lead people to God by legally affirming sinful behavior.