Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

[DexUK]

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 is simply not true. In the UK the government has explicitly rejected and is legislating against any notion of religions being forced to recognise same sex unions or officiate in contracting them. So much so that the official State Established Church - i.e. the Church of England - will be legally banned from carrying out same sex unions in its churches. Absolutely no religion is going to be forced to carry out such unions, unless it wants to. And given that ban in respect of the CofE, if the CofE ever did decide that gay marriages were a good thing, it would be in an awkward position!

So your point simply does not stand as far as the UK is concerned. There is no persecution, and for any Church to claim that there is is a hysterical nonsensical reaction and it’s* thoroughly unbecoming* any organisation dedicated to truth to seek to misrepresent the issue in that way.

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.

Completely untrue again. Just because one thing happens does not make another thing happen. Yes, there are some people who would like to lower the age of consent but they don’t do so as an outcome of any argument over same-sex marriage. And, in any case, would you believe it if you were told the Age of Consent for girls in the Vatican is 14? Look it up… And all that is yet another cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - the one does not cause the other.

And in any case we don’t, as Catholics, have to live by the rules of the world ourselves and nobody is forcing us to or is going to.

your third paragraph is just silly. I’m sorry but no American, Frenchmen, Englishmen needs a lawyer to work out a living will…

You clearly don’t have any experience of the English legal system. I do. What may be available in post offices in your jurisdiction certainly isn’t in mine. In England such ‘living wills’ are not legally enforceable - they carry absolutely no weight in law and can be over-ridden. The only Will that is enforceable is the one after death. As for setting up legal rights between partners, well obviously we have now got Civil Partnerships for same-sex people in the UK, but until that point (and nothing else has otherwise changed in our legal code) there was simply no legal way to confer upon someone else next-of-kin rights except by the statutory recognition of marriage. I am not married (or, indeed civilly partnered) so when I had to make arrangements of a similar nature regarding rights over property, I had to engage a lawyer to draw up a Deed of Trust. And that costs money. And it typically involves TWO (or more) lawyers - i.e. one for each party to make sure they’re not being swindled by the other(s).

But the big reason why not to tolerate gay “marriage” is real easy

…

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.

The existence of promiscuous people (of either orientation) is not an argument for banning those who would be monogamous from becoming legally united with each other. Heterosexual people also get STDs. Is that an argument for banning heterosexual marriage?

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.

If you are a healthcare professional then you really ought to be able to understand that being gay does not mean you will automatically get AIDS simply because you are gay. Quite how you leap to the conclusion that by allowing homosexuals to legally partner with each other should somehow increase the tragedy of HIV is beyond me. Because not allowing them to do so is so clearly working now, isn’t it?

Perhaps instead opposition to homosexual unions is, in fact, nothing whatsoever to do with epidemiology but is, rather, to do with opposition to homosexuality? Which I can understand - you don’t have to approve of something you aren’t able to empathise with as a result of your heterosexuality - but I don’t see why anyone should need to discriminate against people who only want to live in a structure where they can love each other safe in the knowledge that they can provide for each other. Why should gender matter if these people aren’t Catholics?

 

[fix]

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

Exactly. It is still re-ordering society in a deviant way.

 

[90Domer]

Because then, after some years pass and gay marriage becomes the norm, someone will suggest:

“Why not tolerate religious gay marriage?”

I agree. The bar will continue to be pushed further and further. Also, in states that have legalized SS “marriage” the consequences that have followed have not been good: school curriculum changes and suits against business establishments immediately come to mind.

Furthermore, I don’t think it was ever about “marriage.” It’s about normalizing a behavior/lifestyle that is anything but.

 

[Jason_NC]

“Not allowed” is different from being an “intrinsic evil”, right?

So it is officially, in the catechism or wherever, written down as an “intrinsic evil”?

Certain Bishops have made comments about saying yes. Bishop Paprocki wrote wrote an article about it last year during the elections so Catholics could make a more informed decision between voting for the Democratic Party candidates and those from other parties who were running.

ct.dio.org/bishops-column/59-think-and-pray-about-your-vote-in-upcoming-election/text.html

Edit: As for the Catechism, I tried looking it up in the Vatican Publishing House Second Edition Catechism, and I couldn’t find anything. So I decided to look up abortion and it says nothing about abortion being an intrinsic evil, which I know is, so the best answer for the same sex marriage can probably be given by a Priest.

 

[Scottgun]

While it is fine to argue the reasoning behind not tolerating civil unions, let’s make it clear that the Church has already given instruction on this: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Executive summary: the State has an obligation to uphold traditional marriage and can not morally recognize other arrangements.

P.S. “getting out of the marriage business” and “allowing gays to marry” are irrational stances. See, Libertarianism and the Tyranny of Contract

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Daddy

**Today, many people have moved on from that belief and do not believe it is an abomination. That is why the view on same sex marriage is changing and evolving for many in this era. **

Yes, there are many willing to go along with corruption. As somebody once said, the reason evil triumphs is that good men stand by and do nothing.

 

[edwest2]

Daddy

**Today, many people have moved on from that belief and do not believe it is an abomination. That is why the view on same sex marriage is changing and evolving for many in this era. **

Yes, there are many willing to go along with corruption. As somebody once said, the reason evil triumphs is that good men stand by and do nothing.

Amen.

Ed

 

[Maria1993]

We are not “judging” anyone.

We are told to tell our brother he has a speck in his eye, although of course we must make sure we do not have a log in ours.
Frequently people use the “dont judge me” card, you have to understand one is not judging you, one is not condemning you (except for some radical people, there is hateful people everywhere regardless of belief) while you may be oppsed to those who oppose gay unions, you have to see that they are opposed to it because they WORRY about the state of the soul of a person. Jesus never “condemned” anyone, he said “go and sin no more” and they did as he said. He knew what they had done, so he ‘called them out’ on it because he obviously cared about them and their soul. The same can be applied here. It’s not that they are ‘homophobic’, because no one goes to a doctors office and says ‘I am terribly afraid of gay people’, a phobia is like what some people have with spiders. It is ultimately up to them what path they choose, they have free will. We must take up our cross, offer up the pain, and follow Christ. The end will justify the pain it took to get us there.

Also saying “well, I personally believe it is wrong, but…” is not what we are called to say. We must be salt and light. Holdfast and do not fold in like a house of cards. Many will disagree, but there is nothing ‘hateful’ about what I have said.

There is NOTHING in Church teaching that is hateful towards them. We must recieve them like anyone else with compassion and point them towards the path we are all on that is narrow. May you all have a great day.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Maria

As Jesus said in John 7:24, “Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, but just because something has been done one way for a long time, does not mean it was right, or that it cannot or should not change.
If we kept that way of thinking we’d make no progress at all in any area.
We’d still be using using leeches to suck out our blood when we are sick.
We’d still be praying to the God Zeus, among many other.

Also, if people are taught for four thousand-plus years that something is an abomination, they will act accordingly.
Today, many people have moved on from that belief and do not believe it is an abomination. That is why the view on same sex marriage is changing and evolving for many in this era.

Actually, leeches ARE still used by many reputable physicians (you can Google it).

Zeus was one of a progression. The ancient Greeks did not ONLY pray to Zeus, and their forerunners had a variety of beliefs. So the premise you offer appears to beg the question that same sex marriage SHOULD change based on the idea that because ‘other’ long held views changed, IT should as well. You haven’t really offered any proof that the ‘long held view’ was wrong to begin with.

Murder being wrong is a long held view. Should we change it based on our contemporary understanding that gee, psychological abuse etc. made the poor murderer feel forced to commit murder, and the ‘victim’ was really asking for it, so it’s not really like this particular ‘murder’ was so bad? I think you’re verging on a relativistic view here (my opinion of course).

 

[Maria1993]

Maria

As Jesus said in John 7:24, “Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.”

I meant judging WITH the intention of condemning, by appearance. We will know a tree by it’s fruit. Like saint Augustine said, to know ones character we only need to look at their actions and likes.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**I meant judging WITH the intention of condemning, by appearance. We will know a tree by it’s fruit. Like saint Augustine said, to know ones character we only need to look at their actions and likes. **

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Here is a must-read article.

newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=0113-notes-sanity

 

[Jason_NC]

Here is a must-read article.

newoxfordreview.org/note.jsp?did=0113-notes-sanity

Thanks for the article.

 

[Jason_NC]

While it is fine to argue the reasoning behind not tolerating civil unions, let’s make it clear that the Church has already given instruction on this: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Executive summary: the State has an obligation to uphold traditional marriage and can not morally recognize other arrangements.

P.S. “getting out of the marriage business” and “allowing gays to marry” are irrational stances. See, Libertarianism and the Tyranny of Contract

If that was commented towards my part in this thread, my views on the state refraining from having any control over marriage has changed since acquiring the knowledge and position of the Vatican on the relationship between society, state, and marriage.

 

[down_under]

That is simply not true. In the UK the government has explicitly rejected and is legislating against any notion of religions being forced to recognise

Completely untrue again. Just because one thing happens does not make another thing happen. Yes, there are some people who would like to lower the age of consent but they don’t do so as an outcome of any argument over same-sex marriage. And, in any case, would you believe it if you were told the Age of Consent for girls in the Vatican is 14? Look it up… And all that is yet another cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy - the one does not cause the other.

And in any case we don’t, as Catholics, have to live by the rules of the world ourselves and nobody is forcing us to or is going to.

You clearly don’t have any experience of the English legal system. I do. What may be available in post offices in your jurisdiction certainly isn’t in mine. In England such ‘living wills’ are not legally enforceable - they carry absolutely no weight in law and can be over-ridden. The only Will that is enforceable is the one after death. As for setting up legal rights between partners, well obviously we have now got Civil Partnerships for same-sex people in the UK, but until that point (and nothing else has otherwise changed in our legal code) there was simply no legal way to confer upon someone else next-of-kin rights except by the statutory recognition of marriage. I am not married (or, indeed civilly partnered) so when I had to make arrangements of a similar nature regarding rights over property, I had to engage a lawyer to draw up a Deed of Trust. And that costs money. And it typically involves TWO (or more) lawyers - i.e. one for each party to make sure they’re not being swindled by the other(s).

The existence of promiscuous people (of either orientation) is not an argument for banning those who would be monogamous from becoming legally united with each other. Heterosexual people also get STDs. Is that an argument for banning heterosexual marriage?

If you are a healthcare professional then you really ought to be able to understand that being gay does not mean you will automatically get AIDS simply because you are gay. Quite how you leap to the conclusion that by allowing homosexuals to legally partner with each other should somehow increase the tragedy of HIV is beyond me. Because not allowing them to do so is so clearly working now, isn’t it?

lifesitenews.com/news/lawsuits-against-churches-inevitable-with-gay-marriage-law-uk-independence/
it seems to me that there are at least some people who think they could be in for law suits and forced religious change. This is only dec 10

lifesitenews.com/news/clergy-legal-experts-not-buying-protections-for-churches-in-uk-gay-marriage/

oh here is jan 30 and here legal experts don’t believe what you just said.

lifesitenews.com/news/uk-parliament-overwhelmingly-passes-gay-marriage-bill/

look at that feb 5 parliment passes gay marriage bill seems to me you guys are about to return to formal persecution weather or not it is called that won’t change the lawsuits and fines. If you have more current information please post it. These things do change on a daily basis. I just have not heard it yet.

As catholics we are called to convert the world not put up or tolerate its absurdities. We are called to care about people even when they don’t care about themselves. Love the sinner hate the sin remember.

I did not know that in the English legal system those legal wills had no power I thought they were as valid as they are in the stats or Australia for that matter. Yet again however you bring up this absurd trust issue. Marriage is a trust issue. We put our whole lives in the hands of our spouse and we do it without lawyers. Why are you expressing doubts about the intentions of parties that you expect to live in happy bliss for the rest of there lives in a mock of marriage? surly there intentions are no different then Married peoples intentions at least in your mind. So why do you keep expressing this trust issue? Is it really that hard for homosexual people to trust one another? I don’t understand.

But the science seems to be completely beyond you. You miss entirely the point that HIV/AIDS according to the CDC are main line SSA Active issues and not so much the rest of us. Particularly among SSA active MEN. Who are dieing at unprecedented rates according to the CDC. Not according to some christian think tank. Yes heterosexuals get disease but not like this. 21000 people died in 2009 and according to the transmittance stats of the disease these were mostly Men who have sex with Men (which is interchangeable with SSA active males + rape cases which is a small minority of the data and not separated) there is nothing wrong with my science or my logic. If you don’t like it argue with the CDC. these are well documented facts. weather or not promiscuity has anything to do with it come to think of it is really irrelevant. I mean these things are true regardless of why they are true. is it promiscuity is it the higher rate of infection in anal sex (almost 100%) or the fact that people depend on condoms which while stop sperm don’t stop disease well. That is another conversation.

 

[DexUK]

Yet again however you bring up this absurd trust issue. Marriage is a trust issue. We put our whole lives in the hands of our spouse and we do it without lawyers. Why are you expressing doubts about the intentions of parties that you expect to live in happy bliss for the rest of there lives in a mock of marriage? surly there intentions are no different then Married peoples intentions at least in your mind. So why do you keep expressing this trust issue? Is it really that hard for homosexual people to trust one another? I don’t understand.

I don’t remember mentioning it before, but in this instance was talking about a legal agreement known as a “Deed of Trust” in English Law. It is a contractual arrangement between two or more persons. It’s nothing to do with monogamy or individual trust in another person.

But the science seems to be completely beyond you.

That is impertinent. Science is most definitely not beyond me. I live and work in a scientific environment and my stock-in-trade is explicitly involved in logic. You made the point that allowing homosexual unions would be to somehow increase the spread of AIDS. Which is hogwash. Two legally partnered homosexual persons do not get AIDS out of the ether. The existence of a legal partnership does not suddenly cause them to become more promiscuous than they previously were - if anything, presenting people with the opportunity to legally tie themselves to another person may serve to prevent those with a tendency towards promiscuity from engaging in it due to the commitment they have made where if they had not made that commitment (or had the opportunity to) there would be less to lose by ‘playing away’. You purport to understand medicine, but you certainly don’t appear to understand causal effect or fallacious assumptions. I am not arguing the numbers of homosexual infections of HIV. Why would I? Whatever the numbers, they’re nothing to do with the provision of a legal arrangement by which two same gender persons can unite themselves in a way that emulates certain aspects of marriage. You don’t catch a disease merely because of the existence of a legal right and yet that is what you appear to be proposing - please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[DexUK]

look at that feb 5 parliment passes gay marriage bill seems to me you guys are about to return to formal persecution weather or not it is called that won’t change the lawsuits and fines. If you have more current information please post it. These things do change on a daily basis. I just have not heard it yet.

I tell you what… rather than rely on the politicking by the UK Independence Party to inform you about the contents of the legislation currently going through the UK Parliament (the UK Independence Party which, by the way, has precisely ZERO representation in Parliament and whose only real policy objective is to encourage Britain to withdraw from the European Union and is currently trying anything it can think of to embarrass the government in a by-election in a constituency where the previous incumbent, a former minister in the Coalition, had to resign due to his attempt to pervert the course of justice over a road traffic conviction)… why not take a look at the actual Bill itself?

It’s here:

publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0126/cbill_2012-20130126_en_1.htm

It’s wordy, but if you’re capable of reading English you should be able to identify the various safeguards that are built into it.

 

[down_under]

I tell you what… rather than rely on the politicking by the UK Independence Party to inform you about the contents of the legislation currently going through the UK Parliament (the UK Independence Party which, by the way, has precisely ZERO representation in Parliament and whose only real policy objective is to encourage Britain to withdraw from the European Union and is currently trying anything it can think of to embarrass the government in a by-election in a constituency where the previous incumbent, a former minister in the Coalition, had to resign due to his attempt to pervert the course of justice over a road traffic conviction)… why not take a look at the actual Bill itself?

It’s here:

publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2012-2013/0126/cbill_2012-20130126_en_1.htm

It’s wordy, but if you’re capable of reading English you should be able to identify the various safeguards that are built into it.

yes but as I posted above the safe gaurds will not be enough says the lawyers who have investigated it. (and no more about it then my feeble attempts could illustrate)

 

[down_under]

I don’t remember mentioning it before, but in this instance was talking about a legal agreement known as a “Deed of Trust” in English Law. It is a contractual arrangement between two or more persons. It’s nothing to do with monogamy or individual trust in another person.

That is impertinent. Science is most definitely not beyond me. I live and work in a scientific environment and my stock-in-trade is explicitly involved in logic. You made the point that allowing homosexual unions would be to somehow increase the spread of AIDS. Which is hogwash. Two legally partnered homosexual persons do not get AIDS out of the ether. The existence of a legal partnership does not suddenly cause them to become more promiscuous than they previously were - if anything, presenting people with the opportunity to legally tie themselves to another person may serve to prevent those with a tendency towards promiscuity from engaging in it due to the commitment they have made where if they had not made that commitment (or had the opportunity to) there would be less to lose by ‘playing away’. You purport to understand medicine, but you certainly don’t appear to understand causal effect or fallacious assumptions. I am not arguing the numbers of homosexual infections of HIV. Why would I? Whatever the numbers, they’re nothing to do with the provision of a legal arrangement by which two same gender persons can unite themselves in a way that emulates certain aspects of marriage. You don’t catch a disease merely because of the existence of a legal right and yet that is what you appear to be proposing - please correct me if I am wrong.

yes i got a little out of hand with the science crack sorry if I ruffled your feathers. I get excited sometimes. That science clearly demonstrates (the CDC stats) that there is a raging HIV transmission problem involved with SSA active males is not a matter for debate. maybe promiscuity, maybe condom failure, maybe the dangerous nature of anal sex or some combination is the problem. The stats don’t bear out why the problem exists they do show that the subset of the culture is being decimated by HIV transmission. Its killing them literally. Its tragic. If this was a way of transmitting swine flu or hendra virus it would be illegal.