Why not gay marriage?

[Gidras05]

I do not believe Samuel Monosov is trying to incite anger, and honestly despite this being an incredibly controversial topic, I hope that we can continue the discussion without pointing fingers and raising alarms.

He is being inquisitive, and is asking justified questions based on our responses. As Catholics, we would be wise to calmly address these questions one at a time, and in some sense try to come to a consensus as Catholics. Remember that in the end, he is our brother as well, and we are all called to inform the masses of the Good Word of our Lord.

Likewise, I hope that Samuel does not abuse this position by antagonizing those that answer him, not that he’s doing so already or currently.

 

[Elizabeth502]

As Catholics, we would be wise to calmly address these questions one at a time, and in some sense try to come to a consensus as Catholics.

Breaking News Breaking News Breaking News

Catholicism is not a consensus religion. The matter of gay “marriage” is settled doctrine, already decided by the Vatican.

 

[Gidras05]

Breaking News Breaking News Breaking News

Catholicism is not a consensus religion. The matter of gay “marriage” is settled doctrine, already decided by the Vatican.

Ah- no no I wasn’t exaclty referring to that specific question. If you noticed, he asked many other questions surrounding it, and has already conceited the Marriage argument.

=) Catholicism is indeed not a consensus religion, but there are many things about our faith that do not have a settled doctrine, so it is important that we discuss these things, use doctrine and scripture, as well as statistics and case studies to at least come to a better way of presenting our case for the other questions asked.

I meant no disrespect by hinting that Catholicism as a practice does not respect doctrine settled by the Vatican.

 

[SaintPatrick333]

Why does this keep cropping up? CAF should have a link somewhere on their site for faq’s regarding the faith to clear all the basic ones like gay marriage, contraceptives, abortions, saints and mary, the papay, councils, etc. Everything that is advocated by Christ that people can’t accept and want answers for. Instead of causing the same debates over and over and over again. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That is what God wants, that is the natural order, that is all there is too it. Nothing more and nothing less. If you disagree with that you disagree with Christ and that’s on you. God Bless!

 

[Gidras05]

Why does this keep cropping up? CAF should have a link somewhere on their site for faq’s regarding the faith to clear all the basic ones like gay marriage, contraceptives, abortions, saints and mary, the papay, councils, etc. Everything that is advocated by Christ that people can’t accept and want answers for. Instead of causing the same debates over and over and over again. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That is what God wants, that is the natural order, that is all there is too it. Nothing more and nothing less. If you disagree with that you disagree with Christ and that’s on you. God Bless!

This is actually a great idea- there should definitely be a FAQ portion on this site for this purpose.

Oh, and you are absolutely right in that this is what the Church teaches. I think he understands that much, as was shown in the previous 8 pages on this thread. =)

 

[Nate13]

This is actually a great idea- there should definitely be a FAQ portion on this site for this purpose.

Oh, and you are absolutely right in that this is what the Church teaches. I think he understands that much, as was shown in the previous 8 pages on this thread. =)

They have tracts for a range of topics. Google “Catholic Answers tract on gay marriage” and: catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage

and

catholic.com/video/same-sex-marriage

catholic.com/quickquestions/is-sterility-an-argument-for-same-sex-marriage

catholic.com/radio/shows/the-gay-marriage-movement-whats-at-stake-4938

 

[Elizabeth502]

Catholicism is indeed not a consensus religion, but there are many things about our faith that do not have a settled doctrine,

But gay “marriage” isn’t one of those. The matter is closed. Papal encyclicals and documents from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have further clarified just how unsupportable it is for a Catholic to approve – in argument, in practice, or in voting. If you do a search on CAF, you will locate those documents among the gazillion threads on this topic over the last 3+ years alone.

 

[Gidras05]

But gay “marriage” isn’t one of those. The matter is closed. Papal encyclicals and documents from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have further clarified just how unsupportable it is for a Catholic to approve – in argument, in practice, or in voting. If you do a search on CAF, you will locate those documents among the gazillion threads on this topic over the last 3+ years alone.

Oh I know, and I completely agree. Once again, I am simply saying that I meant this in regards to his other questions, his -many- other questions, some of which had actually nothing to do with gay “marriage”, but which spawned from the discussion nonetheless.

I hope that you understand that I am not contesting this in any way.

Edit: And I want to remind you that he did concede this argument, as in, he understands that already. That matter is indeed closed =)

 

[Gidras05]

They have tracts for a range of topics. Google “Catholic Answers tract on gay marriage” and: catholic.com/documents/gay-marriage

and

catholic.com/video/same-sex-marriage

catholic.com/quickquestions/is-sterility-an-argument-for-same-sex-marriage

catholic.com/radio/shows/the-gay-marriage-movement-whats-at-stake-4938

Wow, they really do have great documentation. =) Thank you! This reading even helped me clarify this argument with others too, as I am now more informed on exactly -why- we believe what we believe.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

This is actually a great idea- there should definitely be a FAQ portion on this site for this purpose.

Oh, and you are absolutely right in that this is what the Church teaches. I think he understands that much, as was shown in the previous 8 pages on this thread. =)

I certainly do understand. I think the Catholic Church has excellent justification within its framework of belief for its teachings on gay marriage and the morality of gay sex. Indeed, its framework is so interconnected and consistent, that the Catholic Church will probably not tolerate any changes in this definitive teaching,.

I don’t think the Catholic Church would have a very good grounding to make definitive teachings on the legal and social side of gay marriage/civil union and adoption, esp. when it comes to secular society.

Since the Catholic Church is surprisingly careful about what it teaches, and its justification for teaching what it does, I would be very surprised if it definitively taught anything about this issue from the social/legal angle. This is one of the reasons I keep pressing the point.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Since the Catholic Church is surprisingly careful about what it teaches

What is the meaning of the word “surprisingly,” in your context?

I would be very surprised if it definitively taught anything about this issue from the social/legal angle. This is one of the reasons I keep pressing the point.

Then you haven’t read the documents – or certainly not enough of them.

Catholic doctrine is founded, among other principles, on Natural Law. What is technically “legal” must conform to what is moral universally – not just for Catholics but for all of society and societies (mankind). Civil law is a sham when it contradicts what promotes the (moral) common good for all of society – such as the recent WA State legislative strong-arming which occurred this week, promoted by someone who spoke on MSNBC about 3 minutes ago, who is one of those very legislators who sought the redefinition of traditional marriage for entirely personal & selfish reasons. Quoting him verbatim: (“My partner and I ‘got married’ < cough > in a Church < cough > 9 years ago, and we have 4 children.”)

 

[exnihilo]

I don’t think the Catholic Church would have a very good grounding to make definitive teachings on the legal and social side of gay marriage/civil union and adoption, esp. when it comes to secular society.

Well who does have good grounding to make definitive teachings in secular society? What gives anyone such authority? What gives you or me any such authority? It is easy to deny the authority of someone or some institution but to make such a claim you need an argument. I have never heard any convincing argument that demonstrates the Church does not have authority in society.

The real problem for those who deny the Church’s authority is that they have no grounding for morality. Thus they have no morality. Despite this they still appeal to morality. This is incoherent. The secularist first needs to craft a convincing argument that morality exists and can be discerned. Until they do so denying the Church’s authority to proclaim morality is baseless.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Well who does have good grounding to make definitive teachings in secular society?

There are no definitive teachings in secular society, save the categorical imperative: the belief in the dignity and worth of every human being, and our inherant duty to preserve that dignity and to protect and allow total individual autonomy, except when it interferes with the autonomy of others.

How the individual autonomy is balanced with societal stability and function is a matter of pragmatism. Determinations should be made to this end, based on the empirical results from social experiments.

This isn’t really what I see the Catholic Church becoming very involved in, except for articulating proclaiming and defending the Categorical Imperative, as John Paul II and Jacques Maritain accomplished so well. How badly these principles need to be articulated, especially as they concern the unborn children in our society!

This is an entirely different topic (which if you want me to pursue it, let me know and I’ll start a new thread), but I find that an absolute moral metaphysic can be derived from reason and human will alone. God and Church are unnecessary.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

What is the meaning of the word “surprisingly,” in your context?

I’m surprised it’s so careful! I am still very ignorant of the Catholic Church. Trust me, growing up in a Jewish-Protestant home and then taking religious studies from Marxist atheist ex-Catholics will give you the impression that the Church is not very intelligent in the way it formulates its beliefs.

I’m surprised to find out that there’s more to it than I originally thought. That’s a good thing, right?

---

About the rest of what you say, if the Church really teaches about these social issues, maybe its not as careful or intelligent a system as I give it credit for! But then, where are these definitive teachings? No one has listed them yet in this entire thread!

I am, naturally, very happy about how the Washington debate and California court case are shaping up. I predict that Prop 8 will be overturned, and in the next 10-20 years, Gay marriage/civil union will be legal, and soon after, adoption will be required for gay couples.

Then we will find out if this is a good idea. If it isn’t a good idea, it can be reversed. If it is a good idea, then we should be proud to have so quickly broken down barriers to equality, barriers the only justification for which, at this time, is mindless bigotry.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If it isn’t a good idea, it can be reversed. If it is a good idea, then we should be proud to have so quickly broken down barriers to equality, barriers the only justification for which, at this time, is mindless bigotry.

Yeah, no question. Being responsible enough to prevent the manipulation of children for the personal pleasure of adults who experiment with children’s psyches and futures is “mindless bigotry.”

Um, No. Not having a Mummy and a Daddy, but two Daddies or two Mummies is a form of child abuse. There’s no alternative “truth” to that. It’s also a form of non-equality, directed toward children, to imprison them in homes without the choice of a Mummy and a Daddy, but rather forcing them to be raised without one or the other – while other children are afforded access to both genders.

 

[exnihilo]

There are no definitive teachings in secular society, save the categorical imperative: the belief in the dignity and worth of every human being, and our inherant duty to preserve that dignity and to protect and allow total individual autonomy, except when it interferes with the autonomy of others.

You are using the terms of Kantian metaphysics. I do not believe his philosophy is well founded. But what is the basis for your belief that humans have dignity and worth? Are you just asserting that? Absent a transcendental cause of our existence we have no worth and are simply the product of chance.

How the individual autonomy is balanced with societal stability and function is a matter of pragmatism. Determinations should be made to this end, based on the empirical results from social experiments.

I’m afraid I dont quite understand what you are saying here. Could you elaborate? It seems you might be advocating for a utilitarian morality. But this of course is no morality at all. This is a system where someone proclaims an objective and then measures particular acts against that objective. This pseudo morality could be called simple a success morality. But it is nothing like what morality is understood to be which is an actual objective obligation.

This is an entirely different topic (which if you want me to pursue it, let me know and I’ll start a new thread), but I find that an absolute moral metaphysic can be derived from reason and human will alone. God and Church are unnecessary.

Yes, in its fullness it is another topic. But you stated the Church has no authority in moral matters. I asked for the justification of that belief. This is really the heart of the matter, so there is no point discussing the question ‘why not gay marriage’ in a Catholic forum if you categorically reject the moral authority of the church. Of course Natural Law also rejects gay marriage, quite clearly. But again if you simply reject Natural Law the real discussion should be about it and not gay marriage.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Absent a transcendental cause of our existence we have no worth and are simply the product of chance.

People say this, but I don’t know how they know this.

It is obvious to me that all people have intrinsic and absolute worth. I don’t know how it works.

I’m afraid I dont quite understand what you are saying here. Could you elaborate?

Not here. I’ll start a new thread about this in a day or so.

It seems you might be advocating for a utilitarian morality.

Don’t worry. I’m not.

 

[exnihilo]

People say this, but I don’t know how they know this.

It is obvious to me that all people have intrinsic and absolute worth. I don’t know how it works.

If you’ve not read much on the need for something transcendental to have morality I’d suggest reading on the subject. In one way it is as simple as who would be the judge of an act? If it is simply me or a group of men then it is nothing more than my reason or a vote. That isn’t morality.

I do not think it is self-evident that people have intrinsic worth. So you must mean you can reason that they have worth. I’d say that many, maybe most these days, people’s philosophies on life mandate that humans do not have intrinsic value (for instance we were caused by nothing). Of course most people reject that conclusion. That is because we do have worth and there is objective transcendental morality that condemns judgements that we do not have worth. But the bad philosophy that leads them astray is very often not discarded.

 

[Mudgely]

Well who does have good grounding to make definitive teachings in secular society? What gives anyone such authority? What gives you or me any such authority? It is easy to deny the authority of someone or some institution but to make such a claim you need an argument. I have never heard any convincing argument that demonstrates the Church does not have authority in society.

The real problem for those who deny the Church’s authority is that they have no grounding for morality. Thus they have no morality. Despite this they still appeal to morality. This is incoherent. The secularist first needs to craft a convincing argument that morality exists and can be discerned. Until they do so denying the Church’s authority to proclaim morality is baseless.

So, you are saying that the only people with any morality in the world are those who accept the Church? Do I understand you correctly? Is every system of morality baseless except the Church’s?

 

[Mudgely]

Yeah, no question. Being responsible enough to prevent the manipulation of children for the personal pleasure of adults who experiment with children’s psyches and futures is “mindless bigotry.”

Um, No. Not having a Mummy and a Daddy, but two Daddies or two Mummies is a form of child abuse. There’s no alternative “truth” to that. It’s also a form of non-equality, directed toward children, to imprison them in homes without the choice of a Mummy and a Daddy, but rather forcing them to be raised without one or the other – while other children are afforded access to both genders.

Entirely untrue, lock, stock and barrel. A loving home is not gender specific. Studies are showing that children raised by two females do better on every measure of mental health than their peers raised in any other gender permutation. This is presumably because women tend to be more nurturing than men.

Should we ban heterosexual couples from raising children for this reason? I think not. It turns out that even if a household is not the very best environment that it could be for children, that they can still be raised with love and guidance.

All this time, there has been the assumption, based on ignorance, that a heterosexual household was that most healthy for children. But then, this assumption was made by heterosexuals, wasn’t it? Now that the data are improving, we are finding otherwise.