Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

[DexUK]

Sexual activity is not the issue, and how are Catholics involved with anything related to a private funeral? It’s between the family of the deceased individual and their partner, NOT US. We are NOT there.

I thought I was dying in 2011. I would have given my friend durable power of attorney for medical and funeral purposes if it got worse. I put him on my IRA, on my bank account and, if I knew I was dying, I would have drawn up a will leaving everything to him. Simple. And nobody asked about our relationship - nobody.

If you feel the blood relations - the family - did the wrong thing, then they would have to face the consequences, not you, or US.

If you and others here don’t care what the Church thinks then why are you posting here?

Is there something you’re willing to die for? The World War II vets I knew growing up were willing to die for God and Country.

Peace,
Ed

What has one’s willingness to die for a cause got to do with it?

And why I’m posting here is because lots of other Catholic people are posting here saying things along the lines of “gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed to happen” and “civil partnerships are wrong and shouldn’t be allowed” even when nobody (in any position of power, at least) has ever suggested that the Catholic Church should ever be required to approve of such arrangements or be complicit in their creation.

The problem is that we expend so much energy arguing against these sorts of things that, ultimately, do not affect the people who believe in the Church that we look, to the world, like we’re utterly obsessed with what people do in the bedroom and, worse, what they do even when they’re not members of our own denomination!

And if you were willing to draw up complicated arrangements that required the attentions of lawyers (at, no doubt, a not inconsiderable cost, unless you happen to be friends with a lawyer) so that you could enable a specified person to act on your behalf medically, etc, then all the more power to you. I salute you for the fact that you have someone you trust to carry out your wishes. But some people don’t have realistic access to that facility or, indeed, in some places in the world, that facility doesn’t exist at all. Why do we want to deny people - who don’t, after all, share the Church’s outlook on same-gender partnering anyway - the opportunity to do something that will help prevent one of them from being doubly and unnecessarily heartbroken at the end of someone’s life? Where is our charity? Where is our compassion?

 

[Seeker1961]

What has one’s willingness to die for a cause got to do with it?

And why I’m posting here is because lots of other Catholic people are posting here saying things along the lines of “gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed to happen” and “civil partnerships are wrong and shouldn’t be allowed” even when nobody (in any position of power, at least) has ever suggested that the Catholic Church should ever be required to approve of such arrangements or be complicit in their creation.

The problem is that we expend so much energy arguing against these sorts of things that, ultimately, do not affect the people who believe in the Church that we look, to the world, like we’re utterly obsessed with what people do in the bedroom and, worse, what they do even when they’re not members of our own denomination!

And if you were willing to draw up complicated arrangements that required the attentions of lawyers (at, no doubt, a not inconsiderable cost, unless you happen to be friends with a lawyer) so that you could enable a specified person to act on your behalf medically, etc, then all the more power to you. I salute you for the fact that you have someone you trust to carry out your wishes. But some people don’t have realistic access to that facility or, indeed, in some places in the world, that facility doesn’t exist at all. Why do we want to deny people - who don’t, after all, share the Church’s outlook on same-gender partnering anyway - the opportunity to do something that will help prevent one of them from being doubly and unnecessarily heartbroken at the end of someone’s life? Where is our charity? Where is our compassion?

Love your take on this issue, common sense at last!

I’ve often wondered what people on both sides of this issue will do once it’s resolved. They’ve been arguing about it for so long and their identities are so intertwined with their position that I foresee major depressive episodes.

 

[Jason_NC]

It sounds to me like that’s still “legislating marriage,” just by positively declaring its worthlessness.

By remaining out of it and having religion, not the state via politicians and bureaucrats, determine what is and isn’t marriage?

How so? When do you think Government should enter, and leave, marriage? How should Government define marriage? What marriages should the Government recognize and not recognize? And how can they do this without stripping away the religious rights of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, and/or any other religions that have a clear definition and purpose of marriage?

 

[lovemyjob]

Marriage, as a union between a man and a woman, predates any society and any church.

No one has the authority to redefine it.

Are you asking about homosexual unions?

 

[edwest2]

What has one’s willingness to die for a cause got to do with it?

And why I’m posting here is because lots of other Catholic people are posting here saying things along the lines of “gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed to happen” and “civil partnerships are wrong and shouldn’t be allowed” even when nobody (in any position of power, at least) has ever suggested that the Catholic Church should ever be required to approve of such arrangements or be complicit in their creation.

The problem is that we expend so much energy arguing against these sorts of things that, ultimately, do not affect the people who believe in the Church that we look, to the world, like we’re utterly obsessed with what people do in the bedroom and, worse, what they do even when they’re not members of our own denomination!

And if you were willing to draw up complicated arrangements that required the attentions of lawyers (at, no doubt, a not inconsiderable cost, unless you happen to be friends with a lawyer) so that you could enable a specified person to act on your behalf medically, etc, then all the more power to you. I salute you for the fact that you have someone you trust to carry out your wishes. But some people don’t have realistic access to that facility or, indeed, in some places in the world, that facility doesn’t exist at all. Why do we want to deny people - who don’t, after all, share the Church’s outlook on same-gender partnering anyway - the opportunity to do something that will help prevent one of them from being doubly and unnecessarily heartbroken at the end of someone’s life? Where is our charity? Where is our compassion?

I lived through several periods in our country’s history where the trust, compassion and charity of Catholics were abused. One clear case was abortion. It was all a pack of lies. Another clear case was the introduction of the opium dens called adult bookstores, strip clubs and topless bars in the 1970s. That was NOT what America stood for. And I watched as the radical Marxist feminists drove a wedge between men and women and sowed the seeds of discontent and shouted lies. All the better to prepare the ground for No-Fault Divorce in the 1980s. You know what the sanctity of marriage meant back then? I opened the newspaper and saw lots of ads like this: “No kids? $75 and you’re out. Call 800-DIVORCE.” Lawyers made a buck. Who cares about families being torn apart and kids being traumatized? Pay up. The same with abortion. And the lady on TV in 1972 even said, “Abortion is the most difficult decision a woman will ever have to make and is between her and her god.” Cue the violins and soft sobs. God - they cared nothing for god. It was just a word - a word to get us thinking the wrong way.

And it was all protected by high-priced lawyers who kept us religious nuts at bay.

I remember watching a woman on TV in 1972 begging for our compassion for women who would die in back alley abortions. Have mercy! Support a change to the law. Or more will die. I spit on the ground every time I reread the lies and deceptions that were used.

In 1973, so-called gay rights activists inside and outside the APA passed a vote on homosexuality based on politics, nothing else. Now that they had the “victory” they needed, they could go to judges with the APA’s seal of approval. Now, the APA is the target of another group called “minor attracted persons” (evidence on request).

It was and has been, all about the misuse of human sexuality. The majority of this nation’s problems revolve around that. One guy with three kids from three different women. Or the nice looking lady standing at the entrance of a trailer park with a sign that read: “Deadbeat dad lives here.” I saw that.

Commitment? Who needs it? I heard a guy talking to his buddy. “Hey, are you and whatshername still together?”

No.

“What happened?”

She came up to me one day and said, I don’t want to do this anymore. So I said, OK. Bye.

“How long were you two together?”

Two years.

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

We’ve been deceived waaay too many times. No one needs our permission to do anything.

Best,
Ed

 

[JimG]

Well said.

I can’t wrap my head around how I can expect other people to live to all of my religious beliefs, but not expect them to have the same rights (making me live by their beliefs).

If I believe, purely because of religious reasons, that two men living together or two women living together as spouses is wrong, then I won’t live my life that way. My religion doesn’t tell me that I need to dress modestly to the point of wearing a burka, but there are religions where my dressing the way that I do is considered wrong and immoral and detrimental to society. I don’t expect people who believe that to force that opinion on me (make that the law), because that’s not in line with my religion.

If someone is accepting of gay marriage in their religion (or lack of religion), then I don’t see how I can justify standing in their way.

I hate to be terribly long winded, but I legitimately struggle to understand this opinion/stance. Why is gay marriage the topic of so much debate and such heated opinions while heterosexual marriages that lack any devotion are left alone? Not just celebrity weddings, but how many marriages are entered into without proper respect and consideration before? How many end in divorce, because that’s seen as easier than working through problems? And why isn’t everyone up in arms about these situations instead of focusing so much time and energy on gay marriage - especially considering that many of those people have been in respectful and committed relationships with each other for years, even decades?

I’m not trying to be offensive, and forgive me if my questions have gotten off topic on this.

First, I don’t oppose same sex unions for religious reasons. If it were simply a matter of religious belief, there would be no problem. Same sex unions are bad not because they violate religious principles, but because they violate human principles. They are bad for society, bad for men, bad for women, bad for children, bad for civilization.

Marriage between opposite sexes has been a recognized institution since the dawn of recorded history, long before Christianity. Marriage was recognized and given preference by the state not because it was a nice thing to do, not for purposes of equality, whatever that might mean, but because marriage was crucial to family formation, the raising of children, the training and upbringing of the next generation, without which nations die out. It’s recognized by the state because it helps the common good. A lot of societies have tolerated homosexual behavior quite freely. None that I know of have recognized same sex unions as the equivalent of marriage, because they are not marital, they can never be marital, they can never be conjugal, and are of no benefit to the state.

Your next to last paragraph is important because it points out the ways in which marriage has already been weakened if not destroyed by frivolity and the prevalence of divorce. I would add that marriage began to be destroyed particularly with the widespread acceptance of contraception, which also tends toward the destruction of the conjugal character of marriage by deliberately separating the unitive from the procreative aspects of marital union. If marriage had not already been nearly destroyed, there would never have arisen the push for same sex ‘marriage.’ The very phrase is a contradiction in terms since such a union has no possibility whatever of being marital or conjugal.

It’s rather like saying that we should have no objection to allowing mothers to be called fathers and fathers to be called mothers, if that’s what they want. Or stating that a man has an equal right to breast feed children as a woman. It’s just nonsense. But we live in an age of nonsense. When marriage becomes meaningless, the destruction of the family is nearly complete. And when families are destroyed, so is civilization. We’re pretty far along the road now.

I do agree that we ought to have been putting more effort into building up families instead of destroying them. Same sex ‘marriage’ is just the final devolution.

 

[down_under]

What has one’s willingness to die for a cause got to do with it?

And why I’m posting here is because lots of other Catholic people are posting here saying things along the lines of “gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed to happen” and “civil partnerships are wrong and shouldn’t be allowed” even when nobody (in any position of power, at least) has ever suggested that the Catholic Church should ever be required to approve of such arrangements or be complicit in their creation.

The problem is that we expend so much energy arguing against these sorts of things that, ultimately, do not affect the people who believe in the Church that we look, to the world, like we’re utterly obsessed with what people do in the bedroom and, worse, what they do even when they’re not members of our own denomination!

And if you were willing to draw up complicated arrangements that required the attentions of lawyers (at, no doubt, a not inconsiderable cost, unless you happen to be friends with a lawyer) so that you could enable a specified person to act on your behalf medically, etc, then all the more power to you. I salute you for the fact that you have someone you trust to carry out your wishes. But some people don’t have realistic access to that facility or, indeed, in some places in the world, that facility doesn’t exist at all. Why do we want to deny people - who don’t, after all, share the Church’s outlook on same-gender partnering anyway - the opportunity to do something that will help prevent one of them from being doubly and unnecessarily heartbroken at the end of someone’s life? Where is our charity? Where is our compassion?

ones willingness to die for God and country was a side point in his argument we won’t worry about it now.

The first paragraph of your argument is logically flawed. In many countries on this planet right now (the UK comes to mind) legislators are conspiring against the will of the people who voted for them to make it law that these relations must be recognized in the church by clerics. 1/3 of the clergy of the uk signed a document (including bishops) saying if the government did this we could be looking at formal persecution again because there is no other way to really make this work. Right back to jail terms and fines for not following the law which was a reality not long ago (historically speaking) in that country.

The second paragraph I have exception to. It is the whole world that is obsessed with what goes on in the bed room. Catholics would like this to be less so but make no mistake it is the world that is focused in a sex sex sex all day and night long. The Church is just trying to bring some sanity to the situation. Yes this is a slippery slope situation, but we are already going down the hill at some speed. If we don’t stop SSA “marriage” it will just be a blur on the way past to something we(and most of the world right now) find even more objectionable. Namely legal pederast relations and the lowering of the age of consent to 12 to facilitate it. These arguments are being made in public in the press even as you ignore them like its no big deal.

your third paragraph is just silly. I’m sorry but no American, Frenchmen, Englishmen needs a lawyer to work out a living will. its a kit you pick up at the post office. Power of attorney that is a lawyer thing but so routine it is of no real expense. You are talking 50-80 dollars my grandma had one with my mother for her care it was no bother to set up. but this statement is absurd:

I salute you for the fact that you have someone you trust to carry out your wishes

I thought SSA people were in trusting, loving, nurturing, mutually exclusive relations. So how does this statement fit into the argument anywhere unless you deny a loving nature to SSA people which I don’t think you are.

But the big reason why not to tolerate gay “marriage” is real easy and has nothing to do with religion (only indirectly) sins are sins because the have spiritual and temporal consequences. Sins are bad for you not simply forbidden by God for no reason. How bad?

cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#ddaids

according to the cdc the consequences are well known and horrific. 29000 new cases of hiv in 2010 among active SSA men only. men who have sex with women ~4500. Yet the CDC estimates SSA active men at only 4% of the population. Lets say they are all men. 29000 cases in 4% of the population and ~4500 in the other 96% of the male population.

scroll down the page (at the CDC link) for the aids death toll. May God have mercy on those who think there are no consequences to sin in this life.

If it can be said that all things should be judged by there fruits. Then the fruits of the Active SSA lifestyle simply prohibit it being encouraged or expanded for fear of the evil (that would be people DIEING a horrible death) that will spread throughout society even further then it already has. I am a health care professional. I saw concerted efforts to fight swine flu and bird flu across various nations. This problem is many times bigger and many times more insurmountable. The death toll shows the drugs do not contain aids or hiv and people are dieing in huge numbers. 21007 died in 2009 in just the 46 states alone. 21000 in ONE YEAR. cumulative AIDS diagnosis in new york alone passed 200,000
in 2010. This is a holocaust. This is a tragedy beyond almost anything else except abortion that is happening in this same period of time.

 

[Jason_NC]

Are you certain that two people of the same gender getting married is an intrinsic evil?
The actual ceremony?
Having sex, yes (according to the church, that is).
But perhaps not the marriage part. And that is what is being discussed here: getting married.

The teachings of the Church state that same-sex marriage, sexless or not, is not to be allowed.

Edit: Yes, various Bishops have commented on this and throws same-sex marriage into the same category as abortion.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dex
**
The problem is that we expend so much energy arguing against these sorts of things that, ultimately, do not affect the people who believe in the Church that we look, to the world, like we’re utterly obsessed with what people do in the bedroom and, worse, what they do even when they’re not members of our own denomination! **

The problem is that you do not seem to have much sense of history. This is not a Catholic versus the rest-of-the-world issue. All civilizations, repeat … ALL CIVILIZATIONS … from the dawn of human history have never provided a legal sanction for marriage between members of the same sex. Did you not know that the Catholic Church is simply lining up with the common sense of every civilization known to man?

But I suspect that this too will fall on deaf defeatest Catholic ears.

 

[JimG]

Are you certain that two people of the same gender getting married is an intrinsic evil?
The actual ceremony?
Having sex, yes (according to the church, that is).
But perhaps not the marriage part. And that is what is being discussed here: getting married.

Sexual sins are intrinsic evils. As for same sex persons getting married, that’s not an intrinsic evil so much as an imposibility.

My state might decide to declare that the value of pi exteds to only 100 digits after the decimal point and no more or less, making it a law. But of course they would be wrong. They might declare that AC current and DC current are exacly equal in all respects, but they would be wrong there too.

 

[sw85]

By remaining out of it and having religion, not the state via politicians and bureaucrats, determine what is and isn’t marriage?

How so? When do you think Government should enter, and leave, marriage? How should Government define marriage? What marriages should the Government recognize and not recognize? And how can they do this without stripping away the religious rights of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, and/or any other religions that have a clear definition and purpose of marriage?

To say “this isn’t marriage,” they kind of have to define what marriage is, even if they only use that definition to decline to enforce it. If you think “this is a thing that’s exactly like marriage but for any possible arrangement of more than one person and also it’s not called ‘marriage’” is a worthy compromise, well, you’re giving the enemy too much ground.

Why are you so invested in this libertarian stake, anyway? Does reality objectively matter, or no?

 

[down_under]

Are you certain that two people of the same gender getting married is an intrinsic evil?
The actual ceremony?
Having sex, yes (according to the church, that is).
But perhaps not the marriage part. And that is what is being discussed here: getting married.

in this case I can only say the Pope thinks so. All past Popes charged with teaching the faithful and faithfully transmitting the faith have also condemned it as it became a question for them in there time. As has been pointed out its a fairly new idea. I do not claim to be an authority and I don’t think anyone here can speak with this kind of authority, but perhaps someone can point out exactly what has been said by the Popes or you can look it up, but the above statement will not be contradicted by them. They will be much more educated and reasoned in there response.

 

[silentfactor80]

I think the real question that is never discussed is where do we draw the line in what a marriage is. The argument in favor of “gay marriage” could be used to justify any combination of partnership. How about a brother and sister? Mother and son? Father and daughter? Mother and daughter? Father and son? Cousins? Why does marriage have to be between only 2 people? I mean if ANY consenting adult is allowed to marry then who are we to say no to anyone? Do you see the can of worms you are opening with “gay marriage?”

The state has good cause to support marriage for heterosexual couples. It is a tried a true establishment that is necessary and can yield children without science or some social organization intervening. The same is not true of “gay marriage” though. I see rejecting “gay marriage” as maintaining civil order because law is based on logic / principle, not self-centered emotion.

 

[Jason_NC]

To say “this isn’t marriage,” they kind of have to define what marriage is, even if they only use that definition to decline to enforce it. If you think “this is a thing that’s exactly like marriage but for any possible arrangement of more than one person and also it’s not called ‘marriage’” is a worthy compromise, well, you’re giving the enemy too much ground.

Why are you so invested in this libertarian stake, anyway? Does reality objectively matter, or no?

I’m not sure what’s the Church stance is on this, I’m sure someone more knowledgeable on this matter would know, but I only view the Sacrament of Marriage as the only true form of Marriage (I’m open to a change of perspective if I find out the Church’s teachings on this). The problem I have with Government defining marriage, which I’m a little confused where you’re coming from, is that fact that I live in a society with a heavy Protestant leaning people. Now if the U.S. definition of Marriage was 100% aligned with the Catholic Church, and it was assured to remain that way, I think it would be hard for me to have my current view of “religions dealing with religious matters, not the Union”.

Now since this isn’t the case, to assure that the Catholic Church and the Sacrament of Marriage in America is protected from Government intrusion, I have to support all religion’s freedom and right to choose what is and isn’t marriage. The only way this can be done is by Government leaving it alone to the individual religions to define marriage without intrusion.

Edit: And I don’t view this as a Libertarian stake, though I do understand why a social/political Libertarian (not myself, a Conservative) would POSSIBLY agree with this.

 

[edwest2]

Here is the Church’s position:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Are you certain that two people of the same gender getting married is an intrinsic evil?
The actual ceremony?
Having sex, yes (according to the church, that is).
But perhaps not the marriage part. And that is what is being discussed here: getting married.

You’re separating marriage from sexual relations?

What are you proposing, a ceremony of marriage between two people of the same gender but without any sexual actions?

If so, what is the need for marriage? for things like property right? Get a lawyer to draw up a will. For the ‘right’ to make decisions for the other person? Get a power of attorney. There is no need for a marriage ceremony if there is to be no sexual relationship. And before you bring up the ‘people who are too old’, there is always the possibility (Abraham and Sarah), and as for inability to consummate, that has been grounds for invalidity, so again, if you’re proposing that marriage is just for the sake of having a big old party and ‘legal rights’, again, there is no need if there is no ‘sex’.

Marriage is not just ‘the ceremony’. The ceremony is the START of the marriage, not something totally separate.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jason
**
Now since this isn’t the case, to assure that the Catholic Church and the Sacrament of Marriage in America is protected from Government intrusion, I have to support all religion’s freedom and right to choose what is and isn’t marriage.**

No, what you really have to support is the common sense of mankind since the dawn of human history. The Catholic Church is on the side of the common sense of mankind. You should be too and forget that nonsense about protecting Catholic freedoms by advancing the putrid and immoral demands of the godless far left.

 

[mab23]

Are you certain that two people of the same gender getting married is an intrinsic evil?
The actual ceremony?
Having sex, yes (according to the church, that is).
But perhaps not the marriage part. And that is what is being discussed here: getting married.

Marriage in America legally is an incentive oriented to procreation and is an incentive to keep parents with their children and help them out financially - redefining marriage to be about who you love will not only take the Children out of it but also hurt our already recognized religious liberty

what they should be fighting for is benefits/ disposition of property and so on in civil Unions but instead the gay movement is bent on redefining marriage and forcing the gay agenda and culture in the Government and onto Americans

:twocents:

 

[Jason_NC]

Jason
**
Now since this isn’t the case, to assure that the Catholic Church and the Sacrament of Marriage in America is protected from Government intrusion, I have to support all religion’s freedom and right to choose what is and isn’t marriage.**

No, what you really have to support is the common sense of mankind since the dawn of human history. The Catholic Church is on the side of the common sense of mankind. You should be too and forget that nonsense about protecting Catholic freedoms by advancing the putrid and immoral demands of the godless far left.

I’m a little confused over what you’re saying. The first post I had in this thread I made it clear I’m against same-sex marriage and unions, the only thing I was saying was wheater or not Government should have ANYTHING to do with marriage. After taking a quick look at the link edwest2 gave, the Vatican seems to have a different view in which I now accept: “The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society”.

I accept their social teachings so my view was obviously a wrong one, but don’t mistaken what I said for a support of homosexual anything. I in no means was defending the sins of homosexuals, simply pondering over the idea of making marriage 100% religion’s responsibility and not the Governments.

 

[GWright]

You are behind the times. Some denominations already offer gay religious marriage. It is already tolerated.

rossum

Hi rossum

I was referring specifically to the Catholic perspective, sorry if i was not clear.