Why not tolerate non-sacramental, civil gay marriage?

[edwest2]

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

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.

That appears to be the goal: stop calling it a sin. The sad truth is to ignore the truth. I spent almost ten years working in a hospital and never once did I ask a coworker: Are you gay and acting on it? The same with patients I dealt with in the ER.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Frank_Drebin]

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

It mean some posters would whine about John’s rudeness and complain to a moderator to have St. John banned from Catholic Anwers.

 

[fix]

That appears to be the goal: stop calling it a sin. The sad truth is to ignore the truth. I spent almost ten years working in a hospital and never once did I ask a coworker: Are you gay and acting on it? The same with patients I dealt with in the ER.

Peace,
Ed

Right, this sin has to be treated like other sins. But, too often people demand that it is not a sin or special care must be taken because it is so very different. That seems dehumanizing to me. In fact Rome made such a point:

What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.

 

[edwest2]

Right, this sin has to be treated like other sins. But, too often people demand that it is not a sin or special care must be taken because it is so very different. That seems dehumanizing to me. In fact Rome made such a point:

Thank you, and the same for non-gays engaged in sexual sin.

Peace,
Ed

 

[fix]

Thank you, and the same for non-gays engaged in sexual sin.

Peace,
Ed

The problem is these other groups are not agitating to redefine the basic unit of civilization.

 

[edwest2]

The problem is these other groups are not agitating to redefine the basic unit of civilization.

Right, but as you know, the “deflection argument” is often used, as in: “Why isn’t the Church coming down hard on sexual sins committed by straights?” Again, like a magician, he tells his audience to look elsewhere while doing his actual ‘magic.’ That magic being “We’re not redefining anything, we’re just asking for the same thing straight people do.”

That is obviously not the case.

Peace,
Ed

 

[kuppermom]

Marriage is a sacrament between the man, the woman, and God. Living in a country where I pay taxes, legally being okay with others marrying in same sex marriages is degrading to marriage in itself. I’m not going to say the “I believe…” I’m going to say what is truth as taught in the bible. Because saying “I believe” and what is actually true can be very different. Just because a serial killer believes what he’s doing is okay, doesn’t make it so.
Jesus didn’t say husbands love whom ever you would like to including your dog if you believe it to be okay. He said, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church in splendor…” Ephesians 5:25. Having said that.
I am a part of this country, and I love this country. Making something like this legal is degrading to the idea of marriage. When they first came out with Roe vs. Wade they also sad, if your religion doesn’t agree with it, don’t do it yourself, and look at the massacre we have today. I am not okay with making it look like to my kids that same sex marriage is okay. I wasn’t there to shout out against abortion, but I am here to shout out against this.

 

[edwest2]

Marriage is a sacrament between the man, the woman, and God. Living in a country where I pay taxes, legally being okay with others marrying in same sex marriages is degrading to marriage in itself. I’m not going to say the “I believe…” I’m going to say what is truth as taught in the bible. Because saying “I believe” and what is actually true can be very different. Just because a serial killer believes what he’s doing is okay, doesn’t make it so.
Jesus didn’t say husbands love whom ever you would like to including your dog if you believe it to be okay. He said, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church in splendor…” Ephesians 5:25. Having said that.
I am a part of this country, and I love this country. Making something like this legal is degrading to the idea of marriage. When they first came out with Roe vs. Wade they also sad, if your religion doesn’t agree with it, don’t do it yourself, and look at the massacre we have today. I am not okay with making it look like to my kids that same sex marriage is okay. I wasn’t there to shout out against abortion, but I am here to shout out against this.

Catholics are still shouting out about abortion. We never stopped.

Peace,
Ed

 

[RevDon]

Thank you, and the same for non-gays engaged in sexual sin.

Peace,
Ed

Yes! We demand that sex be restricted to two people who are married to each other!
Then we refuse to permit two people of the same gender to marry each other.

 

[RevDon]

Marriage is a sacrament between the man, the woman, and God. Living in a country where I pay taxes, legally being okay with others marrying in same sex marriages is degrading to marriage in itself. I’m not going to say the “I believe…” I’m going to say what is truth as taught in the bible. Because saying “I believe” and what is actually true can be very different. Just because a serial killer believes what he’s doing is okay, doesn’t make it so.
Jesus didn’t say husbands love whom ever you would like to including your dog if you believe it to be okay. He said, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church in splendor…” Ephesians 5:25. Having said that.
I am a part of this country, and I love this country. Making something like this legal is degrading to the idea of marriage. When they first came out with Roe vs. Wade they also sad, if your religion doesn’t agree with it, don’t do it yourself, and look at the massacre we have today. I am not okay with making it look like to my kids that same sex marriage is okay. I wasn’t there to shout out against abortion, but I am here to shout out against this.

Kuppermom,
Please explain how the marriage of two same-sex adults is degrading…
I can understand the harm done by a killer, I just can’t figure out how heterosexual married couples are harmed by same sex married couples. Help me to understand.
If one of your dearly-loved kids upon turning 20 would tell you he is gay, would you respond, “You are a damned sinner and you must spend the rest of your life alone, because if you were to find another man to love and try to marry him it would be degrading to the marriage your father and I have”?

 

[RevDon]

Right, but as you know, the “deflection argument” is often used, as in: “Why isn’t the Church coming down hard on sexual sins committed by straights?” Again, like a magician, he tells his audience to look elsewhere while doing his actual ‘magic.’ That magic being “We’re not redefining anything, we’re just asking for the same thing straight people do.”

That is obviously not the case.

Peace,
Ed

Ed,
Could you enumerate what differences you see in the “marriage” that same sex people are seeking and what heterosexual people have?

 

[Stephen168]

Ed,
Could you enumerate what differences you see in the “marriage” that same sex people are seeking and what heterosexual people have?

Same sex unions are not marriage, so the state is creating a legal fiction. What is the societal problem being solved by this fiction?

 

[The_Bucket]

RevDon,

Gay marriage does not degrade my marriage. But it does degrade the concept of marriage. Or it at the very least changes the concept of marriage. I think I’ve been through that awhile back and basically found a ton of agreement with JimG.

Sacramental marriage has been and always will be about sex. It’s about basically putting a stamp on a relationship and saying “these two people have agreed to get one another to heaven and thus a sexual union between them is licit.” Children are a byproduct of that sexual union but are not necessary to marriage.

Civil marriage has been, for the most part, about property rights and stamping “legitimacy” onto children. Legitimacy matters so much less today than it once did, but keep in mind not too long ago, illegitimate children were not entitled to inheritance rights. I personally think that assigning legitimacy to some children and illegitimacy is wrong because it makes one person seem more valuable than other, but it served a real purpose.

When we divorced children from sex with widespread acceptance of contraception, we opened the door to civil marriage being separated from children. We followed contraception up with no-fault divorce and, with that, marriage is now about “romantic love.” It is not about the creation of stable family units and legitimate children. It is about “two people being in love.” That’s why I don’t think it’s a great logical stretch to allow for gay marriage. I don’t think it’s right but I concede the logic.

Once civil marriage stopped being about children, the need for there to be two people of the opposite sex involved totally dissolved. It only took a few decades for society to catch up with that logical step.

 

[RevDon]

Same sex unions are not marriage, so the state is creating a legal fiction. What is the societal problem being solved by this fiction?

The prevention of people who might like the opportunity to be married under the law to take advantage of over 1,000 benefits afforded to heterosexual couples, for one.

 

[The_Bucket]

The prevention of people who might like the opportunity to be married under the law to take advantage of over 1,000 benefits afforded to heterosexual couples, for one.

In all seriousness RevDon, why should they get tax benefits? I’m not talking about visitation and inheritance and joint property. That’s all fine with me to be honest.

But the benefits of marriage are all about the expected creation of children. Married couples get certain benefits because they are expected to create children and raise them with some modicum of civic virtue. The creation of new citizens is a pretty important thing.

While it is indeed possible for homosexuals to parent children, they cannot create them on their own. There’s no way for the DNA of two homosexuals to create a new child. Yes, yes, I know that the DNA of two homosexuals can be INCLUDED in a new child, but you need some modicum of a third party involved. With two men, you need an egg and a woman to birth 'em. With two women, you need fertilization and you can’t fertilize an egg without a man involved somewhere.

If you want to discuss joint property rights, visitation rights, inheritance rights, power of attorney, let’s do that. I see no way that civil authorities can or even should block that. But when it comes to benefits, those were put in place to encourage people to create the next generation.

 

[RevDon]

RevDon,

Gay marriage does not degrade my marriage. But it does degrade the concept of marriage. Or it at the very least changes the concept of marriage. I think I’ve been through that awhile back and basically found a ton of agreement with JimG.

Sacramental marriage has been and always will be about sex. It’s about basically putting a stamp on a relationship and saying “these two people have agreed to get one another to heaven and thus a sexual union between them is licit.” Children are a byproduct of that sexual union but are not necessary to marriage.

Civil marriage has been, for the most part, about property rights and stamping “legitimacy” onto children. Legitimacy matters so much less today than it once did, but keep in mind not too long ago, illegitimate children were not entitled to inheritance rights. I personally think that assigning legitimacy to some children and illegitimacy is wrong because it makes one person seem more valuable than other, but it served a real purpose.

When we divorced children from sex with widespread acceptance of contraception, we opened the door to civil marriage being separated from children. We followed contraception up with no-fault divorce and, with that, marriage is now about “romantic love.” It is not about the creation of stable family units and legitimate children. It is about “two people being in love.” That’s why I don’t think it’s a great logical stretch to allow for gay marriage. I don’t think it’s right but I concede the logic.

Once civil marriage stopped being about children, the need for there to be two people of the opposite sex involved totally dissolved. It only took a few decades for society to catch up with that logical step.

Since we assume that Jesus is in some way the one who made sacraments out of actions that were not sacraments, do you think we can find something from him that says his interest in marriage is sex? I can’t find much from Jesus on the subject. St Paul says a lot about sex, including the advice to everyone, “Don’t get married.” Of course he was expecting the Parousia any day. He compares marital love to the relationship between Christ and the Church which is not sexual, but spiritual.

You wrote:It’s about basically putting a stamp on a relationship and saying “these two people have agreed to get one another to heaven and thus a sexual union between them is licit.”
I’d go beyond that. Two people getting one another into heaven is not only licit, it’s holy. There are examples of friends that have done this, for example St Francis and St. Claire, but I firmly believe that marriage is God’s plan for procreation AND helping to get one another into heaven.

The Church for a long time taught that procreation and the management of sexual urges was the purpose of marriage. She taught that sex was a marital duty, even at times when one of the spouses didn’t want it at all. The Church has changed that teaching and admits that the mutual benefit of spouses (which I firmly believe includes your holiness idea) is what marriage is about.
The Church would also profess that Mary and Joseph were married, yet the Church also teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary, so what’s up with that?

 

[Stephen168]

The prevention of people who might like the opportunity to be married under the law to take advantage of over 1,000 benefits afforded to heterosexual couples, for one.

Those ‘benefits’ are for real married people as a subsidy to create and raise societies next generation. As much as everyone would like military veteran’s benefits, they are required to serve first. See post 243.

 

[RevDon]

Those ‘benefits’ are for real married people as a subsidy to create and raise societies next generation. As much as everyone would like military veteran’s benefits, they are required to serve first. See post 243.

I’m not going to search through your convoluted post 243. If you have a point to make in this regard, make it in a new post, and I’ll reply to it.

The benefits cited in my post are not reserved to heterosexual couples who are fertile. The “next generation” argument is a red herring.

In D.C. and a number of states, same sex couples can be really married, yet DOMA prevents them from receiving the benefits of marriage.

This string is about non-sacramental, civil gay marriage. We have shifted from time to time into areas of religious values, and I think that’s a subject worth its own discussion.

Calling what exists a fiction as you have is just incorrect. Gay marriage is a fact, whether you like it or not. You have consistently failed to give vvalid, independent (non-cyclical) reasons for your position, so I believe I will henceforth refrain from replying to your nonsensical posts.

 

[The_Bucket]

Since we assume that Jesus is in some way the one who made sacraments out of actions that were not sacraments, do you think we can find something from him that says his interest in marriage is sex? I can’t find much from Jesus on the subject. St Paul says a lot about sex, including the advice to everyone, “Don’t get married.” Of course he was expecting the Parousia any day. He compares marital love to the relationship between Christ and the Church which is not sexual, but spiritual.

Christ did not make marriage a sacrament, though His Church did. Marriage was extremely important in Judaism and so it only makes sense that it would continue to be vitally important in Christianity.

There are examples of friends that have done this, for example St Francis and St. Claire, but I firmly believe that marriage is God’s plan for procreation AND helping to get one another into heaven.

Here we totally agree.

The Church for a long time taught that procreation and the management of sexual urges was the purpose of marriage. She taught that sex was a marital duty, even at times when one of the spouses didn’t want it at all. The Church has changed that teaching and admits that the mutual benefit of spouses (which I firmly believe includes your holiness idea) is what marriage is about.

The Church has not changed Her teaching on sex being a marital duty even when one spouse does not want it. Sex is absolutely still a duty of marriage. In fact, refusing to consummate the marriage makes even a valid marriage dissoluble by the Holy Father. The Church has only changed the tone of the message to arrive at something I think makes Her teaching more understandable in the minds of the rank-and-file.

The Church would also profess that Mary and Joseph were married, yet the Church also teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary, so what’s up with that?

I think you’re trying to get at the idea that Mary would somehow be “degraded” if she and St. Joseph had been physically intimate. This is not the case.

 

[The_Bucket]

The “next generation argument is a red herring.”

It absolutely is not. What would you have the government do, test everyone who wished to get married for fertility? This is A) a gross intrusion of privacy B) extremely difficult to do in practice and C) not something that would be reliable given changes in fertility due to external events. It was also a complete impossibility up until the last few decades or so.