Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

[Stephen168]

The authority of law in a number of jurisdictions states that for purposes of law, same sex marriage is real.

No, it is a legal fiction because same sex unions are not marriage, as I showed you in post 243.

If you persist in applying the definition that marriage can only be between heterosexuals, and everyone were in agreement with that definition, then there would be no need for this discussion.

People come up with crazy ideas all the time and people discuss them.

There is not universal acceptance of that definition, hence we discuss the issue to establish what is right and true. However, you may not use the definition in question to justify itself.

Post 243 answered the question

Post 243 is lengthy. Again, I ask you to be specific. To what part of it do you wish to draw my attention?
If you were referring to this:
“On the contrary; marriage is a union of male and female for the purpose of raising the children they create. By its design a same sex union is not capable of creating children, so the union will never have children to raise. Therefore, same sex unions are not marriage.”

I’m referring to the question answered in post 243.

1. You assume male and female. That is the question in dispute.

No the question is: Is a same sex union marriage? Post 243 answers the question; No it is not.

1. There is a difference between begetting and raising children. Same sex couples raise children.
2. As you have noted, there are various circumstances of heterosexual couples who cannot beget children.
   As I continue to assert, the fertility argument doesn’t work.

This was answered in post 243.

As I showed in Post 250 your response to Post 243 seemed like ramblings that didn’t have any sense in attempting to refute the question. In fact I think you seemed to agree with my reply one, but with my reply two you seemed neutral, and with my reply three you just rambled which didn’t make any sense. You need to think, understand, and reason.

 

[Monkey1976]

“doesn’t matter” You said it.

Read the rest of that statement. Heterosexual couples are - as a rule - fertile. Homosexual couples are not.

What matters is that our laws reflect what we perceive to be the greatest good for the most people and the least harm to any.
I for one am quite happy that we have the ability to make decisions like this.
I would not want to live, for example, having to follow the code of Leviticus, or for that matter Sharia Law.

Yet you seem happy to knuckle under to the laws of secularism and relativism.

As for anthropology, a wide variety of arrangements have been approved as marriage, including polygamy.

But always - without exception - between male and female.

As I see it, same sex marriage promotes good to same sex couples and to the society in which they live. (see my post above for a partial list)

Opinion, not evidence. Show me the data that proves all humanity has been wrong about the definition of marriage for all of history until AD2000.

The acceptance of same sex marriage causes no one harm.

Were the federal government to accept same-sex “marriage”, my taxes would then be going to cover the tax breaks offered to “married couples” with no return. For heterosexual couples, there is the reasonable expectation that children will be born who will join the workforce and - by extension - the tax base, providing revenue for government services of which I and (someday, God willing) my family partake.

I’m paying out with no possibility of return - that is a direct economic harm to me.

To extend your argument, a man who enjoys sexual relations with sheep “causes no one harm” - should we legalize cross-species “marriage”?

The musical, Cabaret, has a song that expresses it well:
"How the world can change
It can change like that’
All for one little word: marry.

Lyrics from a musical are sentiment, not evidence.

I would note that - once again - my request for a single example of a civilization anywhere in the world from the dawn of history to AD2000 that accepted same-sex “marriage” as equal to marriage was ignored. If same-sex “marriage” is such a wonderful thing with so many benefits, it follows that it would have been adopted by someone at some point in history. After all, homosexual behavior has been with us for just as long, even among the rulers of civilizations who would have had nothing to lose. Just one example behind which the banners of same-sex “marriage” supporters could rally.

 

[edwest2]

Would you say that fidelity and monogamy are important to a marriage? I would. Though I would be quick to admit that it is not always the case that marriages live up to that today, and even admit that infidelity is one reason marriages break up.
The Catholic Church is still a very potent voice for morality and justice. Some legislators vote according to the way their church (Catholic or other denomination) establish what’s “right.”) And in places where the issue is put to a referendum, all voters have a chance to influence what will be permitted to same sex couples (including those 1,000+ benefits I cited) but also the stigma that is still held (the judging that goes on).
So discussing the issue thoroughly is very important. Keeping an open mind to evaluate the arguments put forth to see if they make sense is very important. If you live in a jurisdiction where same sex couples can be married, how you respond to them from the depth of your heart is important.
As with many things, human beings, no matter how ornery they may seem to be, do better with the support of people around them than they do with the disdain of their society. Our culture has the opportunity now to define marriage on the basis of the values we hold and not just on the basis of our discomfort about sex. We should be telling everyone that as a society we expect fidelity, monogamy, permanence, mutuality, truth and many other things like that in married couples, and we should be ready to help them when the stresses of married life try to tear them apart.
Married people behave better in many different ways. Married people make less capricious decisions, take fewer dangerous risks, participate more in healthy social activities, get sick less often. All of these things are good for society. Religious married people support their churches, work in them and in outreach ministries more often (of course that’s influenced by child rearing responsibilities) and are spiritually and morally accountable to each other day in and day out. That promotes holiness.
There is good evidence to show that same sex married couples with the support of their communities vary little from heterosexual couples in all this.

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

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html

Why was gay history month established by force of law? With all due respect, what human attributes are enhanced by being gay? Of the gay people I worked with, some were good, others were better, but being gay did not - without mentioning sexual activity - place them in a superior position. What? Left-handed People history month?

Why are kids in public schools exposed to same sex marriage when they aren’t ready, emotionally or intellectually, to fully understand what it means?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Azygos]

Wherever Gay-Marriage is made legal there it is being taught in the school systems, to children as a GOOD thing. This behavior is mentally and physically destructive not to mention 1 Cor. 6:9 which says that homosexuals do not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Homosexuality is extremely disordered and causes spiritual death which also leads to more evil as shown in Romans 1:27-32

Example of Homosexuality being taught in school,
youtube.com/watch?v=gnMYTeO3BjI

Here is an article that about sums up the homosexual movement and what is to become of it.
catholicinbrooklyn.blogspot.com/2012/07/i-believe-that-homosexual-movement-is.html

 

[fix]

That is absolutely nonsense and you know that. You’re coming at this from a position where everyone “knows” that homosexual actions are wrong. That’s just not factual. People do not know that it is wrong. People do not just go along to get along but in their hearts know it’s wrong and just don’t have the courage to say it. People are genuinely changing their minds today and it’s not like it’s been an eternal truth etched in our collective consciences that sexual acts between the same sex is morally wrong. It’s been tolerated and even encouraged in other civilizations. And I don’t just mean ancient Greece. Go look at medieval Japan for instance.

Not everyone has had the same upbringing as you or I. Not everyone has the same opinion or set of beliefs as you or I. Most Eastern religions don’t touch on homosexuality at all in their sacred texts. Whether Hindus and Buddhists consider homosexual actions moral or immoral or neither has changed over the centuries. These are certifiable facts my friend.

So there are plenty of people who are coming from a position of not simply rebelling against what they know is true but actually coming at them with entirely different worldviews. That’s not to say they are right. They are not. But immediately blasting them with both barrels and saying “you’re wrong, you support evil and you know you support evil” is probably not the best way to go about it.

Look, you are on a forum. A Catholic forum. The truth is easily found here. If you constantly bicker over someone’s tone then perhaps you need to consider that your evaluation is wrong. Why not address the arguments and stop complaining about tone?

What would you do if you were counseling a heterosexual couple that was living together before marriage? Would you look at them and just yell “FORNICATOR” or would you try to gently explain why what their doing is both sinful and counterproductive to their pending marriage? True enough that they’re engaging in fornication, but how is smacking them in the face with that going to help, especially if they, say, grew up in a household where they were taught that they should definitely move-in with a prospective spouse first to “seek how it works.” People are really and truly taught these things from childhood. Denying these realities is not helpful.

We are not counseling anyone. That is the point. Different circumstances call for different responses.

See this is additionally part of the problem. I’m pretty sure I’ve clearly stated my opposition to same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption. I’ve voted to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in Florida. All I’m asking for is a change in tone, mostly because I think it would be more constructive.

Good.

 

[The_Bucket]

I’m bringing up the issue of tone because we don’t disagree on substance, except perhaps to what extent gay marriage will cause moral and societal ruin. I personally don’t think it’s going to do much societal harm because the societal harm caused by the destruction of the family unit has already been done. And it was done by heterosexuals.

We also disagree on the matter of which is worse, homosexual relations or heterosexuals having sex outside of marriage. I see them as basically morally equivalent. Both are gravely sinful and thus I have no right to make a judgment as to which God sees as “worse.”

I guess the only place we disagreed is in the other thread where you advocated for the criminal prosecution of people who commit sodomy and I find that idea absolutely horrifying. Not because I’m downplaying the sin, but because I think it lends itself to gross abuse, discrimination, a massive intrusion of privacy and the precedent would be extremely dangerous given that secular culture changes thus opening the door for criminal prosecution of the Church and its members “bigotry” against homosexuals.

 

[fix]

Let Us Flee for the Enemy of Truth Is Inside:

Irenaeus (d. 202), in his Against Heresies, recounts a story told by Polycarp (d. 156), who had studied under John. One day the apostle was in the public baths when Cerinthus entered. John stood up and told his companions, “Let us flee, lest the building fall upon us, for the enemy of truth, Cerinthus, is inside.” An ancient tradition holds that John wrote his first two epistles as a counter to the errors of Cerinthus.

If the Apostle were here today and posted something like this what would posters say?

 

[RevDon]

It seems that you agree with me and/or you failed to address the question

Stephen,
Your post 243 is quite detailed. In my subsequent posts I attempted to deal with some glaring errors of fact or of logic in that post, but in no wise do I agree with the substance of your basic argument.
If you want to discuss any specific idea, please make clear what it is and what you understand by my statements in regard to your post and I’ll try to make my position clear. Please don’t just paste in a copy of something previously posted and expect me to know what you mean by repeating it.

 

[RevDon]

Let Us Flee for the Enemy of Truth Is Inside:

If the Apostle were here today and posted something like this what would posters say?

And this posting helps us to form opinions about why we should or should not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriages how?

 

[fix]

And this posting helps us to form opinions about why we should or should not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriages how?

It points to the unending complaints about tone.

 

[The_Bucket]

John told his companions to leave. He did not say that to Cerinthus.

And the dispute was over religious teaching since both sides were claiming to understand and profess the true nature of Christ. Cerinthus himself was a teacher so it was a matter of two people or groups of people entering the arena of ideas over what Christ taught and who He was.

There’s a bit of a difference between battling Gnosticism and trying to pull homosexuals back into the fold of Christ’s love.

 

[RevDon]

Wherever Gay-Marriage is made legal there it is being taught in the school systems, to children as a GOOD thing. This behavior is mentally and physically destructive not to mention 1 Cor. 6:9 which says that homosexuals do not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Homosexuality is extremely disordered and causes spiritual death which also leads to more evil as shown in Romans 1:27-32

Example of Homosexuality being taught in school,
youtube.com/watch?v=gnMYTeO3BjI

Here is an article that about sums up the homosexual movement and what is to become of it.
catholicinbrooklyn.blogspot.com/2012/07/i-believe-that-homosexual-movement-is.html

The second article is full of errors of fact as well as errors of logic
.
UCDavis has published a critique of studies that are usually used to prove all the abuses the author of this article alleges, and soundly refuted them psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Here’s how the article writer describes herself:
“I am a revert Catholic, having been away from the Church for 38 years. I was born in New York State, grew up in the Midwest and fell in love with a guy from Brooklyn, ending up where I started from. I now live in Brooklyn, New York with my husband, four cats and a bird. I am starting this blog on December, 8, 2011, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, and the day that I have done a total consecration of my life to Mary, the Mother of God. The world in which we live has gone completely mad where up is down, right is wrong and wrong is right. My reason for doing this blog is to give myself a place to rant and rave against the madness so I don’t have to accost total strangers on the street and force them to listen to me. Despite my apparent cynicism, I believe life on this earth is an amazing gift from our Lord, and it is a sin to waste it! But the most amazing life of all is eternity in heaven offered to us by our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. That is the message I wish to share.”
(underlining mine) This person has no specialized knowledge or experience that can add constructively to the question we are discussing.

 

[fix]

John told his companions to leave. He did not say that to Cerinthus.

And the dispute was over religious teaching since both sides were claiming to understand and profess the true nature of Christ. Cerinthus himself was a teacher so it was a matter of two people or groups of people entering the arena of ideas over what Christ taught and who He was.

There’s a bit of a difference between battling Gnosticism and trying to pull homosexuals back into the fold of Christ’s love.

His words would be judged harshly by some here. Gnostics do not deserve the same charity as homosexuals?

 

[RevDon]

It points to the unending complaints about tone.

Well, empassioned people do seem to have difficulty with maintaining an even tone, but let’s not let that distract us from the central question.

 

[The_Bucket]

His words would be judged harshly by some here. Gnostics do not deserve the same charity as homosexuals?

Are you serious? It’s more like a teacher of Islam battling against a teacher of Christianity in the public square.

Christ used harsh language when he spoke of the scribes and their hypocrisy. He consistently said they would receive a “severe condemnation.” And yet He showed mercy and kindness to adulterous individuals, prostitutes and tax collectors. He used His wisdom to understand that those great sinners needed to be shown love and charity before they could be gently pushed to get out of their sinful lives. The scribes and high priests, conversely, should have known better than to put themselves above anyone else.

I imagine that, failing repentance, those in our clergy who did things like protect child molesters will receive a more severe condemnation than your run-of-the-mill homosexual. Or even homosexual and heterosexual prostitutes. “For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required.”

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,
Your post 243 is quite detailed. In my subsequent posts I attempted to deal with some glaring errors of fact or of logic in that post, but in no wise do I agree with the substance of your basic argument.
If you want to discuss any specific idea, please make clear what it is and what you understand by my statements in regard to your post and I’ll try to make my position clear. Please don’t just paste in a copy of something previously posted and expect me to know what you mean by repeating it.

Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologia answers questions in a systematic style. A question is asked, then a section offers arguments (objections) for what will later turn out to be the wrong answers. Next, a brief section introduces a different answer. The question then closes with a refutation (replies to the objections) of the arguments presented in the first section. This system causes structured reasoning. This is what you see in post 243.

Protestants like to take verses from the Bible and try to make them stand on their own as a complete thought. This leads them to some crazy ideas. Catholics take the whole Bible as a complete thought. You have to take a Catholic approach to post 243. Your attempt to point out errors in parts and pieces allowed you to agree with me in one instance; crazy considering it was not your goal.

Post 243 is one specific idea that is worthy of discussion but, you have to understand the whole of it to discuss it rationally.

 

[RevDon]

Are you serious? It’s more like a teacher of Islam battling against a teacher of Christianity in the public square.

Christ used harsh language when he spoke of the scribes and their hypocrisy. He consistently said they would receive a “severe condemnation.” And yet He showed mercy and kindness to adulterous individuals, prostitutes and tax collectors. He used His wisdom to understand that those great sinners needed to be shown love and charity before they could be gently pushed to get out of their sinful lives. The scribes and high priests, conversely, should have known better than to put themselves above anyone else.

I imagine that, failing repentance, those in our clergy who did things like protect child molesters will receive a more severe condemnation than your run-of-the-mill homosexual. Or even homosexual and heterosexual prostitutes. “For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required.”

If I were in charge of doling out rewards and punishments in the after life…I’m glad I’m not.

 

[fix]

Well, empassioned people do seem to have difficulty with maintaining an even tone, but let’s not let that distract us from the central question.

Agreed.

 

[fix]

Are you serious? It’s more like a teacher of Islam battling against a teacher of Christianity in the public square.

Not at all. I do not want to derail the thread.

Christ used harsh language when he spoke of the scribes and their hypocrisy. He consistently said they would receive a “severe condemnation.” And yet He showed mercy and kindness to adulterous individuals, prostitutes and tax collectors. He used His wisdom to understand that those great sinners needed to be shown love and charity before they could be gently pushed to get out of their sinful lives. The scribes and high priests, conversely, should have known better than to put themselves above anyone else.

I imagine that, failing repentance, those in our clergy who did things like protect child molesters will receive a more severe condemnation than your run-of-the-mill homosexual. Or even homosexual and heterosexual prostitutes. “For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required.”

Stick with the Church. The Pharisees today are those who claim fidelity while leading others astray. See these threads how many claim they follow Christ while minimizing sin and calling sin no sin.

 

[The_Bucket]

Stick with the Church. The Pharisees today are those who claim fidelity while leading others astray. See these threads how many claim they follow Christ while minimizing sin and calling sin no sin.

I don’t think that’s actually true. The Pharisees of the past were those who claimed righteousness for themselves and showed no mercy or compassion or understanding on others. Think of all the examples in the Gospel. Jesus is dining with sinners? He must be a sinner himself. Jesus’ disciples are not following the required washings before eating? He must be a sinner. Jesus reaching out and interacting with heretics and schismatics? He’s a sinner. Jesus is implying that Samaritan is capable of goodness? Blasphemy!

Keep in mind, these were no small things back then. It’s not like we Catholics understanding that our Protestant brothers and sisters are capable of great good even if their faiths do not contain the fullness of the truth. Samaritans were sworn enemies of the Israelites and out and out blasphemers for suggesting that God was not present in the Temple in Jerusalem. Major, major fighting words.

I don’t know if you’re implying that I’m minimizing or denying sin, but I don’t see many other posters doing that to be honest. And that makes sense, since this is Catholic Answers. I’m saying that there’s a way to call sin what it is while still being loving to everyone.

As for “sticking with the Church” I most certainly am. I even lead my parish’s confirmation class. I have zero qualms with the doctrine and wish more parishes were like my own in that they are steering back towards orthodoxy and away from a history of being a parish filled with National Catholic Reporter type rank and file. I’m just trying to take a page out of my own pastor’s book of moving towards orthodoxy by focusing on showing Christian love to all while never denying what is good and what is evil.