Why outlaw secular gay marriage?

[Dannel11]

I am Catholic. I understand that homosexual activity is a sin. I understand that marriage is a sacrament and is between a man and a woman. The question I have is as Catholics, why are we trying to impose our beliefs on society as a whole?

I understand that making gay marriage legal makes the Church’s job of making disciples of all nations more difficult. However, I also know that the Church does not want a Theocracy. So how do we justify trying to control the behavior of non-Catholics? Wouldn’t it be better to change society through conversion, which in turn changes the laws instead of trying to work the system?

 

[austenbosten]

I am Catholic. I understand that homosexual activity is a sin. I understand that marriage is a sacrament and is between a man and a woman. The question I have is as Catholics, why are we trying to impose our beliefs on society as a whole?

I understand that making gay marriage legal makes the Church’s job of making disciples of all nations more difficult. However, I also know that the Church does not want a Theocracy. So how do we justify trying to control the behavior of non-Catholics? Wouldn’t it be better to change society through conversion, which in turn changes the laws instead of trying to work the system?

So do you believe that Catholics should not object to abortion, euthanasia, racial policies, and genocidal policies because it would be “imposing our beliefs”?

 

[tafan]

Because the prohibition against gay marriage meets both of the Church’s requiements relative to vices which should be suppressed by human law

1. the population can easily abide by the law
2. our society cannot be maintained without the prohibition of it

You change society through conversion when condition 1 is not met.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Homosexual marriage, so called, violates not only our religious beliefs but natural human reason. We ought to organize our society based on authentic reason, especially in matters as important as marriage and the family.

 

[djames99]

People have been wanting to change Divine laws for ages. It sorta gets in our way when we want to submit to the sensual. The sad irony is that even if it succeeded, a higher Authority is waiting at the end of this temporal free-for-all party to have us render account. The worst going to those who convinced others to trade eternal life which was their heritage for the temporary glitz,delectable and eventual putrefaction.

If we found the cure for cancer, why would we not spread it around? If we found the key of true eternal life, would we not want to share it with everyone for all generations? The Catholic Church is the only Church that holds that key. This is the job Christ left us to do. Call this whatever “…acy” you wish, it’s the job. It is an immense task and we are vulnerable. The world will roll over kicking and screaming to be left alone to it’s devices while we try to spoon feed the medicine we know will cure it. We may have to give our life for that cause.

 

[doormouse73]

its nothing new what you are asking (O P ).

why do you think it has never been granted?

i cant think of any time in human history it has been granted.can you?

 

[Dannel11]

Because the prohibition against gay marriage meets both of the Church’s requiements relative to vices which should be suppressed by human law

1. the population can easily abide by the law
2. our society cannot be maintained without the prohibition of it

Do you have a source on these?

 

[Dannel11]

So do you believe that Catholics should not object to abortion, euthanasia, racial policies, and genocidal policies because it would be “imposing our beliefs”?

You are changing the argument to an absolute. Let me try a bad analogy:

• Three men live on an island. One murders another one. This is obviously evil because an innocent person was killed.
• Three men live on an island. Two are lovers. It doesn’t really affect the 3rd guy. Only the two living in sin are effected and they are engaging in sin of their own free will. Why should the 3rd guy try to forcefully stop it?

It’s easy to come up with argument as to why the Church is trying to prevent abortion and euthanasia. I’m trying to find an argument for why the Church is taking action in this specific issue instead of letting sinners be sinners.

 

[Erich]

Marriage teaches that men and women need each other and that children need mothers and fathers. A loving and compassionate society comes to the aid of motherless and fatherless children, but no compassionate society intentionally deprives children of their own mom or dad. But this is what every same-sex home does – and for no other reason but to satisfy adult desire.

If there were truly no distinction between marriage and “gay marriage” then would there be any need for the “gay” modifier? Of course not. Spin a globe and pick virtually any place on earth at any previous time in human history; you will find that they do marriage one way – between men and women. There may be other differences, but marriage has always required a husband and wife.

 

[tafan]

Do you have a source on these?

Sorry about that, I should have posted it earlier but I was in a rush. From the Summa newadvent.org/summa/2096.htm#article2 .

Article 2. Whether it belongs to the human law to repress all vices?
…

Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.

…

A couple of notes: when reading the Summa one has to be a little careful about the language translation; the one word that pops out here is “majority”, Aquinas would not have been using that word in the technical sense (51%) that we use it today.
Secondly, less you think that this is just one Saint’s opinion,please note the traditionally Aquinas’s Summa has been accepted as part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church, although not infallible.

Finally, due to my rush, I really gave an incomplete answer. Since there are two conditions and the second being “without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained”, to answer your question completely we must address why the prohibition of gay marriages is needed for society to function. Alas, I believe some of the other posts have addressed this issue quite well. In addition I will give you a quote from the Compendium of Social Docrtine of the Church which is a little different way of looking at it.

1. The priority of the family over society and over the State must be affirmed. The family in fact, at least in its procreative function, is the condition itself for their existence. With regard to other functions that benefit each of its members, it proceeds in importance and value the functions that society and the State are called to perform[471]. The family possesses inviolable rights and finds its legitimization in human nature and not in being recognized by the State. The family, then, does not exist for society or the State, but society and the State exist for the family.

Every social model that intends to serve the good of man must not overlook the centrality and social responsibility of the family. In their relationship to the family, society and the State are seriously obligated to observe the principle of subsidiarity. In virtue of this principle, public authorities may not take away from the family tasks which it can accomplish well by itself or in free association with other families; on the other hand, these same authorities have the duty to sustain the family, ensuring that it has all the assistance that it needs to fulfil properly its responsibilities.

You can easily see that the family (in its traditional form) is critical to the proper functioning of society and that the state has a responsibility to sustain the preeminence of the family.

 

[Dannel11]

If we found the cure for cancer, why would we not spread it around?

Absolutely. However, if we had a cure for cancer, should we force everyone with cancer to take it?

That is what I’m trying to find an argument for. I know why gay marriage is wrong, I’m just trying to figure out the justification we are using to impose those beliefs on others.

 

[Dannel11]

You can easily see that the family (in its traditional form) is critical to the proper functioning of society and that the state has a responsibility to sustain the preeminence of the family.

Now we are getting somewhere. How do you counter the argument that allowing gay marriage does not circumvent traditional marriage?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Secondly, less you think that this is just one Saint’s opinion,please note the traditionally Aquinas’s Summa has been accepted as part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church, although not infallible.

A somewhat technical point, given in a Thomistic spirit: since Aquinas was not a bishop his teachings would not have been magisterial in and of themselves. However, there has been a considerable degree of Church endorsement of his works, above and beyond even his being declared a Doctor of the Church.

 

[tafan]

Now we are getting somewhere. How do you counter the argument that allowing gay marriage does not circumvent traditional marriage?

How can the traditional family be maintained as the preemminent societal grouping, if you take a corrupted form and place it on the same level?

1. The family, the natural community in which human social nature is experienced, makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the good of society. The family unit, in fact, is born from the communion of persons. “‘Communion’ has to do with the personal relationship between the ‘I’ and the ‘thou’. ‘Community’ on the other hand transcends this framework and moves towards a ‘society’, a ‘we’. The family, as a community of persons, is thus the first human ‘society’“[468].

**A society built on a family scale is the best guarantee against drifting off course into individualism or collectivism, **because within the family the person is always at the centre of attention as an end and never as a means. It is patently clear that the good of persons and the proper functioning of society are closely connected “with the healthy state of conjugal and family life”[469]. Without families that are strong in their communion and stable in their commitment peoples grow weak. In the family, moral values are taught starting from the very first years of life, the spiritual heritage of the religious community and the cultural legacy of the nation are transmitted. In the family one learns social responsibility and solidarity[470].

 

[tafan]

A somewhat technical point, given in a Thomistic spirit: since Aquinas was not a bishop his teachings would not have been magisterial in and of themselves. However, there has been a considerable degree of Church endorsement of his works, above and beyond even his being declared a Doctor of the Church.

Since almost all Bishops used the Summa as the primary text for theology in their seminaries for around 300-400 years, the Summa is certainly part of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. It was taught by the Bishops! However, not universally, so it would not reach the point of infallibility. It goes quite beyond a “consideral degree of Church endorsement”, it is what the Bishops taught from.

 

[Robertanthony]

You are changing the argument to an absolute. Let me try a bad analogy:

• Three men live on an island. One murders another one. This is obviously evil because an innocent person was killed.
• Three men live on an island. Two are lovers. It doesn’t really affect the 3rd guy. Only the two living in sin are effected, but they are engaging in sin of their own free will. Why should the 3rd guy try to forcefully stop it?

It’s easy to come up with argument as to why the Church is trying to prevent abortion and euthanasia. I’m trying to find an argument for why the Church is taking action in this specific issue instead of letting sinners be sinners.

You think it wouldn’t bother me to be alone on an island with two men who copulate in their hut next to mine? But the real question is: how do you equate keeping marriage the way it’s always been (both secular and religious) for time immemorial to forcefully stopping anything? I don’t want one of humanity’s most noble and ancient institution to be redefined to fit the whims of people who don’t mind placing themselves above the natural law. Never mind the rare (or not so rare) occurrence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, anybody who isn’t a complete moron knows that society has a future because new people are added through procreation, last time I checked Adam and Adam can’t procreate, neither can Eve and Eve. Homosexuals are free to call their sinful, sterile, unnatural union whatever they want except “marriage”.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I am Catholic. I understand that homosexual activity is a sin. I understand that marriage is a sacrament and is between a man and a woman. The question I have is as Catholics, why are we trying to impose our beliefs on society as a whole?

I understand that making gay marriage legal makes the Church’s job of making disciples of all nations more difficult. However, I also know that the Church does not want a Theocracy. So how do we justify trying to control the behavior of non-Catholics? Wouldn’t it be better to change society through conversion, which in turn changes the laws instead of trying to work the system?

All law is about imposition of beliefs. I believe that I shouldn’t be mugged, so I try to impose that belief on muggers. I believe that that highway travel should be safe and organized, and so I support the idea of speed limits and lanes, and requirements that cares stay on the correct side of the road to try to force others to follow this belief.

Imposing beliefs, in the sense of trying to force others to abide by them, is not a bad thing in and of itself. It can be a bad thing. It would be bad for me to try to force everyone to go to Mass on Sundays, for example, even though it would be good if everyone went to Mass on Sundays.

Both gay marriage options - creating laws that say gay people can be married, and refraining from doing so - impose beliefs on others. You can force people to treat gays as though they are married under the law, or you can not do so.

The question is which is better? But given that one option is forcing people to pretend that wrong is right, and the other is forcing people not claim that they’ve done something they haven’t, I think the answer is clear.

 

[Dannel11]

How can the traditional family be maintained as the preemminent societal grouping, if you take a corrupted form and place it on the same level?

The argument can be made that the family that exists today, essentially the nuclear family, is not the same family we had back in the biblical days where many generations of the same family and often other families lived under the same roof.

What makes this incarnation of the traditional family the one worth preserving? Where can we find evidence that allowing gay marriage will be the end of the traditional family?

 

[Dannel11]

The question is which is better? But given that one option is forcing people to pretend that wrong is right, and the other is forcing people not claim that they’ve done something they haven’t, I think the answer is clear.

The answer is clear to us but not necessarily to non-Christians. Outlawing murder is not imposing our beliefs on others because the vast majority of people believe murder is wrong. The current trend is that the number of people that think gay marriage is wrong is shrinking. Eventually the majority of people will be for allowing it legally. I am all for trying to change public opinion on the matter, but there are Catholic organizations trying to lobby and affect the legislative process to keep the laws in effect.

I’m trying to find strong justification for these actions because to non-Catholics, it looks like we are trying to force our morality onto them.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Now we are getting somewhere. How do you counter the argument that allowing gay marriage does not circumvent traditional marriage?

I think one key point we need to keep in mind is that a country is one big society, one big community. Each individual American (this applies to each country, but we Americans are especially prone towards an excessive sense of independence just as Chinese, for example, are especially prone to excessive corporatism) is not an island. We are traveling the road of life together, in a single great caravan, so to speak. One person’s life inevitably affects all the others, because we are a whole.

I’ll just give a few examples of the practical implications of this in the case of homosexual marriage.

One is children raised in a culture in which homosexual “marriage” occurs, such as that of my own State. These children are likely to encounter homosexual marriage periodically on TV or in overhearing conversations. They may have schoolmates with “two mommies” or “two daddies”. At the very least they will almost certainly have schoolmates whose families believe homosexual marriage is healthy and good and a civil right. Children absorb values from the surrounding culture as much of not more than from their parents, and so living in a society that accepts homosexual unions will affect Christian families.

Another is that the religious liberty and conscience rights of those who object to homosexual marriage are threatened. In my local area there is a family that owns a beautiful farm and makes some extra money hosting weddings on their property. Of course Catholics have weddings in churches, but the point is that this couple is now being sued by a lesbian couple for refusing to host their “wedding.” The family’s chances in court are not looking good, and they are being pounded hard by the local media in stories with headlines like “Marriage Denied.”

A third example is the general decline in our culture’s idea of what marriage is. The original driver of this is not homosexual marriage, by easy divorce. Easy divorce, and no-fault divorce above all, encourages people to think of marriage as a mere contract of convenience for “people who love each other.” Thus divorce in some couples begets divorce in other couples through this change in the culture’s idea of what marriage is all about and has now led to homosexual marriage, since after all “they love each other too.” Homosexual marriage reinforces this pagan interpretation of marriage in general, dragging the whole society to a new low.