Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

[fix]

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 Church is interested in all of society. She defends the common good.

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!

That is not from fighting against immoral laws. That false view is from people that hate the Church.

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?

There is no charity is this compromising of truth. It is the opposite of charity.

 

[Jason_NC]

Charlemagne…for the millions in the world who are not Catholic, same sex marriage is not evil. Their truth is much different than yours.
And until one group can for sure prove that their “truth” is more truthful than others, we all have to get along with each others’ truths.
In the same way that those people allow Catholics to follow their beliefs, so should you let them follow theirs.
Non-Catholics think a lot of Catholic ways do not make sense or are shocking or unhealthy for a person, but they do not interfere with how you live your life in private. As per the subject of the post, they tolerate you so you should tolerate them.

Not eating shrimp and getting circumcised was once law, written by God. For two thousand years! But no longer. Laws do change.
Now it’s 2000 years later again.
Even if this belief does not change in the religion you follow…it is accepted and welcome in others. So you should do your best to tolerate it as a fellow human being. No one is making you go against your own personal, specific beliefs.

.

“they do not interfere with how you live your life in private”

Catholics are doing that how? No one is making them do anything in their private lives, the Church simply believes they should not marry and that Governments should maintain laws to assure this doesn’t happen. No one is telling them they CAN’T make their own choice to live in sin while they engage in homosexual and homogenital activities.

 

[edwest2]

Every single time the nature of normal human sexuality has been redefined, at best we get anarchy, at worst, we get death. And in the process, love becomes a tool for the anarchist individualists who DO want to impose their views on everyone.

The Pill directly led to a strategy to isolate and discredit enemy number one, the Catholic Church, so abortion could be legalized. Deception and lies were used.

Sex and orgasms, not love and commitment, TODAY, is the fruit of it. And a benefits package.

We are being deceived again. The gay community is dying off by their own choice. The information about the rise of HIV/AIDS from the CDC is clear. But the exact same deceptions are being used again against the same “enemy,” the Catholic Church. Why isn’t the gay community helping their own? Would you risk death in exchange for lots of orgasms? It doesn’t matter if you’re gay or straight or bi. I thank God that a treatment is available but the cost is put at $400,000 for a lifetime of treatment. Who can afford that?

And monogamy? Forget it.

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

Peace,
Ed

 

[starshiptrooper]

Since Catholics don’t consider civil marriage a sacrament anyway, then why not just let homosexuals marry each other civilly? So long as any laws passed passed do not force Catholic sacramental gay unions, why not just tolerate them? We don’t even allow two straight Catholics who are merely married civilly to receive Communion, because we don’t consider civil marriage to be an authentic marial union in the Christian sense.

To say otherwise would mean that we actually are giving civil unions a significant measure of validity.

Civil marriage has significant legal and economic benefits. Common sense tells us that the only reason you reward an activity is to encourage that activity.

Why would the state want to encourage heterosexual marriage?

When two unrelated heterosexuals marry, children are a likely result and those children grow up to become future taxpayers and soldiers. Essentially, the state encourages heterosexual marriage because this institution tends to contribute to the survival of the state.

Now, if homosexuals want the benefits of a civil marriage, they have to show how their union will help society.

 

[Geist]

For me it’s because the term “marriage” is still used.

A civil union, on the other hand, is not something I’m going to object to on a legal level.

This. I genuinely don’t mind civil unions, and prohibiting them violates the 14a.

Marriage by the state is the states business. Seperation of church and state can mean church should avoid meddling with the state at times as well.

 

[edwest2]

This. I genuinely don’t mind civil unions, and prohibiting them violates the 14a.

Marriage by the state is the states business. Seperation of church and state can mean church should avoid meddling with the state at times as well.

Then why are homosexual persons and their supporters meddling with the Church?

Peace,
Ed

 

[JimG]

This. I genuinely don’t mind civil unions, and prohibiting them violates the 14a.

Marriage by the state is the states business. Seperation of church and state can mean church should avoid meddling with the state at times as well.

Yes, marriage is the business of the state. It’s also the business of society as a whole. But even calling pretend marriages “civil unions,” does harm to the common good. It helps to further the devaluation of marriage and of the family, which weakens civil society and civilization. The state ought to do what’s good for civilization, not what’s bad for it.

 

[rossum]

Now, if homosexuals want the benefits of a civil marriage, they have to show how their union will help society.

Now, if women past the menopause (so they can no longer have children) want the benefits of a civil marriage, they have to show how their union will help society.

Your argument has been made before. The Catholic Church does not recognise childlessness as a valid reason to annul a marriage, so it appears that the Church does not see children as necessary for a marriage. This is a very weak argument.

rossum

 

[JimG]

Now, if women past the menopause (so they can no longer have children) want the benefits of a civil marriage, they have to show how their union will help society.

Your argument has been made before. The Catholic Church does not recognise childlessness as a valid reason to annul a marriage, so it appears that the Church does not see children as necessary for a marriage. This is a very weak argument.

rossum

No, but it does see the ability to consummate a marriage as essential to marriage. For same sex couples, this is an impossibility.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Now, if women past the menopause (so they can no longer have children) want the benefits of a civil marriage, they have to show how their union will help society.

Those cases are relatively rare and not worth the effort to restrict them.

Your argument has been made before. The Catholic Church does not recognise childlessness as a valid reason to annul a marriage, so it appears that the Church does not see children as necessary for a marriage. This is a very weak argument.

rossum

I am not arguing from Catholic premises, your answer does not apply to me.

 

[Seeker1961]

Then why are homosexual persons and their supporters meddling with the Church?

Peace,
Ed

They want CIVIL MARRIAGE. They want THE STATE to allow them to marry and confer upon them the same benefits that other married people receive from THE STATE.

Gay marriage has been legal in several states for a few years now. Has any Church been forced to conduct a gay marriage ceremony in any of those states? No doomsday scenarios about what “might” happen…REAL instances of a REAL Church having to conduct a REAL sacramental ceremony.

The Church inserted itself into the argument by trying to insist that THE STATE abide by Church rules. In the US, we don’t do that. We don’t allow any religion to impose their specific rules on all the citizens of the country regardless of their personal beliefs. Any Catholic who knows their US History well should be happy about that, since we benefited and thrived from that protection.

Civil gay marriages are happening in this country, and they’re going to continue to happen. You are free to think whatever you want about them, about the people who engage in them, and about American Catholics who understand the importance of keeping “My God and my Holy Book says so” out of civil law.

 

[edwest2]

They want CIVIL MARRIAGE. They want THE STATE to allow them to marry and confer upon them the same benefits that other married people receive from THE STATE.

Gay marriage has been legal in several states for a few years now. Has any Church been forced to conduct a gay marriage ceremony in any of those states? No doomsday scenarios about what “might” happen…REAL instances of a REAL Church having to conduct a REAL sacramental ceremony.

The Church inserted itself into the argument by trying to insist that THE STATE abide by Church rules. In the US, we don’t do that. We don’t allow any religion to impose their specific rules on all the citizens of the country regardless of their personal beliefs. Any Catholic who knows their US History well should be happy about that, since we benefited and thrived from that protection.

Civil gay marriages are happening in this country, and they’re going to continue to happen. You are free to think whatever you want about them, about the people who engage in them, and about American Catholics who understand the importance of keeping “My God and my Holy Book says so” out of civil law.

Then why post here? We aren’t politicians or judges. So why bother us? In the meantime the truth is the truth and we are required to present it to others. This is not my opinion, it is Church teaching. Opinions don’t matter. There are no two right answers.

Your last comment reminds me of a non-review about a book on amazon.com: “Keep your Bible out of my government.”

From the Farewell Address of George Washington, published in 1796

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Here’s your real Church example:

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/national-cathedral-to-officiate-same-sex-marriages/

Peace,
Ed

 

[rossum]

Those cases are relatively rare and not worth the effort to restrict them.

And you have statistics from countries/states where same sex marriage is legal to show that same sex marriages are more common? You do not appear to be thinking through your arguments here.

I am not arguing from Catholic premises, your answer does not apply to me.

I am merely pointing out that the Catholic Church is on the side of “children are not essential to marriage”.

rossum

 

[speakttruth]

If the government were countenancing a proposal to declare that triangles have four sides, would you or would you not oppose it? Maybe we should let them have their four-sided triangles and we can keep our three-sided triangles?

The issue is that marriage is a fact of reality – a thing we discover, like the laws of mathematics, not a thing we invent ourselves, like driver’s licenses. Since reality is intrinsically good (God made it, after all), it is good for the state (and everything/everyone else) to conform themselves to that objective reality. This is especially so since man is a social animal and his good is intrinsically bound up with the good of others. The state does not act in a vacuum, so when it embraces falsehood, evil, and nonsense, it has a real effect on the health of the entire polity.

 

[speakttruth]

They want CIVIL MARRIAGE. They want THE STATE to allow them to marry and confer upon them the same benefits that other married people receive from THE STATE.

Gay marriage has been legal in several states for a few years now. Has any Church been forced to conduct a gay marriage ceremony in any of those states? No doomsday scenarios about what “might” happen…REAL instances of a REAL Church having to conduct a REAL sacramental ceremony.

The Church inserted itself into the argument by trying to insist that THE STATE abide by Church rules. In the US, we don’t do that. We don’t allow any religion to impose their specific rules on all the citizens of the country regardless of their personal beliefs. Any Catholic who knows their US History well should be happy about that, since we benefited and thrived from that protection.

Civil gay marriages are happening in this country, and they’re going to continue to happen. You are free to think whatever you want about them, about the people who engage in them, and about American Catholics who understand the importance of keeping “My God and my Holy Book says so” out of civil law.

No dooms day? They forced Catholic charities to give them adoption and now they are closed in those states that has SSM. No they don’t want marriage they want to destroy what marriage has been since Adam and Eve.
First the argument was that they just wanted a civil union, that was a farce, now look where it’s headed and because it’s legal, it does affect everyone. They want to pass laws to pay for all this garbage in the school system, all companies have to cover anybody who just says they are living together because of this started with this homosexual agenda situation… Who do you think is paying for all of this? We are. I live in Mass and you should see the mess they are making out of our state. It’s sick. Now we have to pay for trans genders.
Is this for the common good, to show little kids stories about the 2 princes? Forcing teachers to teach about 2 mommies and two daddies? Forcing history that has to include homosexuals in California? Who has to know who they like sex with? Shall I go on? The church has always been involved with the government. In God we trust is on our money.
Pretty soon we will have people wanting to marry 2 people. We are not allowed to say anything against it being wrong without being called a bigot, homophope, forcing us to go along and hire them or we are discriminating. Religion freedoms are slowly being taken away. Aren’t you seeing the mess out there? If they want the right to calls themselves married, I have the right to say it’s wrong and I shouldn’t have my taxes funding their agenda, along with plan parent hood as well. Forgive me, but your not seeing the whole picture, including other countries the people don’t vote for it, the government is forcing it on people because the homosexual activists have a lot of money backing them up. Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.
God help us!

 

[fix]

They want CIVIL MARRIAGE. They want THE STATE to allow them to marry and confer upon them the same benefits that other married people receive from THE STATE.

Gay marriage has been legal in several states for a few years now. Has any Church been forced to conduct a gay marriage ceremony in any of those states? No doomsday scenarios about what “might” happen…REAL instances of a REAL Church having to conduct a REAL sacramental ceremony.

The Church inserted itself into the argument by trying to insist that THE STATE abide by Church rules. In the US, we don’t do that. We don’t allow any religion to impose their specific rules on all the citizens of the country regardless of their personal beliefs. Any Catholic who knows their US History well should be happy about that, since we benefited and thrived from that protection.

Civil gay marriages are happening in this country, and they’re going to continue to happen. You are free to think whatever you want about them, about the people who engage in them, and about American Catholics who understand the importance of keeping “My God and my Holy Book says so” out of civil law.

They want a square circle because they want it. They want to force their beliefs on others especially children. They want invented rights. They want, they want, they want…

 

[down_under]

Charlemagne…for the millions in the world who are not Catholic, same sex marriage is not evil. Their truth is much different than yours.
And until one group can for sure prove that their “truth” is more truthful than others, we all have to get along with each others’ truths.
.

do you understand the joke in what you just wrote. You just violated the definition of truth. Truth is truth precisely because it is true for everybody. There is not your truth as opposed to my truth. There is only one truth and it is true for everybody and the Catholic church has proven that their truth is true. There are many who do not like what it adds up to but the don’t object to it in a logically ordered way. They don’t claim truth they claim rights. More and more rights that never existed for anyone anywhere at any time. However, they insist they should have these rights. and never mind life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They have just a few more demands.

 

[Seeker1961]

Then why post here? We aren’t politicians or judges. So why bother us? In the meantime the truth is the truth and we are required to present it to others. This is not my opinion, it is Church teaching. Opinions don’t matter. There are no two right answers.

Your last comment reminds me of a non-review about a book on amazon.com: “Keep your Bible out of my government.”

From the Farewell Address of George Washington, published in 1796

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Here’s your real Church example:

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/national-cathedral-to-officiate-same-sex-marriages/

Peace,
Ed

The National Cathedral CHOSE to hold same sex marriages cermonies. There are other non-Catholic churches who have CHOSEN to hold same sex marriage ceremonies. That in no way proves that ALL churches will be forced to hold same sex marriage ceremonies.

I disagree with George Washington’s opinion, which is all that is. It’s not sacred text. Morality is not the exclusive domain of the religious. I know immoral religious people and moral atheists.

And I’m not talking about church teaching, as I thought I made quite clear, I am speaking of CIVIL LAW.

 

[Monkey1976]

The National Cathedral CHOSE to hold same sex marriages cermonies. There are other non-Catholic churches who have CHOSEN to hold same sex marriage ceremonies. That in no way proves that ALL churches will be forced to hold same sex marriage ceremonies.

I disagree with George Washington’s opinion, which is all that is. It’s not sacred text. Morality is not the exclusive domain of the religious. I know immoral religious people and moral atheists.

And I’m not talking about church teaching, as I thought I made quite clear, I am speaking of CIVIL LAW.

It’s already been proven that political advocates of same-sex “marriage” - including those whose sworn duty is to “protect and defend the constitution of these United States” care little about religious belief, as shown by Catholic adoption agencies being forced to close because the law would have forced them to open adoption to same-sex couples - something the Church forbids because - in part - it is not in the child’s best interest.

 

[starshiptrooper]

And you have statistics from countries/states where same sex marriage is legal to show that same sex marriages are more common? You do not appear to be thinking through your arguments here.

Rule of thumb is, if you subsidize something you get more of it. Same sex marriage is certainly more common in those countries where it is legal.

I am merely pointing out that the Catholic Church is on the side of “children are not essential to marriage”.

rossum

Not relevant to my argument.