Why outlaw secular gay marriage?

[Dannel11]

You think it wouldn’t bother me to be alone on an island with two men who copulate in their hut next to mine?

I’m sure it would bother you, but no more than a gay couple moving in next door to you.

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?

Because the trends are moving towards the legalization of gay marriage. The current tactic to prevent this from happening is to make it harder to change the law (e.g. constitutional amendments). This isn’t exactly following with will of the people. If the people want gay marriage and the law gets passed, then that is just another law, like divorce, that is not in agreement with the Church.

I agree that traditional forms of marriage are worth fighting for. What I am trying to find is a justification for forcefully legislating to that end.

 

[Joe_5859]

The Church has generously already answered your question:

Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons

 

[Aelred_Minor]

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.

The bishops have frequently used his writings in their teachings because they are, generally, excellently reasoned expositions of the Catholic Faith which we have from the Apostles. Pope Leo XIII, for one at least, further endorsed St. Thomas’s theology in a more general way, which perhaps is even more significant than individual selected quotations. I merely want everyone to be clear that the writings of Aquinas are not themselves Magisterial documents.

 

[tafan]

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?

That argument cannot be made. Have there been societies with corrupt versions of a family? Most certainly (note: I am not saying your example of multiple generations living together is an example). Have those societies functioned well? almost never.

What is the traditional version of the family? Lets not use the term tradition, lets use the term beginning. Lets do what Jesus taught us (as we were reminded by John Paul II in his TOB audiences): lets go back to the beginning (Mathew 19:8) "He says to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not ". In the beginning refers explicitly to Genesis 1:27 "And God created man to his own image; to the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. " and to Genesis 2:24 “24 Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh.”

This is all the way back before the fall, when man was in his state of original innocence. And Jesus referred to this beginning as a marriage. It is pretty clear what the traditional family is supposed to be: a man and a wife joined in marriage.

 

[Dannel11]

The Church has generously already answered your question:

Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons

There we go! This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!

 

[tafan]

The bishops have frequently used his writings in their teachings because they are, generally, excellently reasoned expositions of the Catholic Faith which we have from the Apostles. Pope Leo XIII, for one at least, further endorsed St. Thomas’s theology in a more general way, which perhaps is even more significant than individual selected quotations. I merely want everyone to be clear that the writings of Aquinas are not themselves Magisterial documents.

I merely want everyone to be clear, with regards to the Summa (I am making no claims of the rest of Aquina’s writings) you are wrong.

From catholicessentials.net/magisterium.htm

Examples of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church:

Universal teaching of the Church such as other papal encyclicals (when not written in “ex cathedra” form), universal references such as the Summa Theologica, and writings of Saints that are continually utilized by the Church and passed from Pope to Pope without objection.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

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.

You cannot say that outlawing murder is not imposing beliefs on others just because most people share that belief. All that means is that you are imposing beliefs on a smaller number of people, but if imposition of beliefs were always wrong, that would also be wrong. The number of people on either side is fairly irrelevant - if imposition of beliefs is always wrong, it’s always wrong.

Some non-Christians (though the argument against homosexual activity does not need to be based on Christian revelation) may disagree about which direction of imposition is better, but that is why we debate and vote and elect people. We do not need to lay down and give up on having moral laws because some people are wrong about morality. (Now obviously, those who disagree would say the same thing to us and think that we are wrong about morality, but all that means is that we must debate and such, not that either side should give up purely because of an idea that we can’t make laws that impose beliefs.)

And again, I say that all law forces morality. That shouldn’t be a problem by itself, otherwise all law would be bad. There are potential problems with such an imposition, namely a) forcing bad morality or b) forcing morality that should not be forced, but it is not the mere fact that morality is being imposed that makes such things bad.

Those who think we’re wrong could easily argue with us on a). But they can’t argue with us on b), because, of the two positions, theirs is the one that requires more: they would require us to treat a homosexual union as though it is a marriage (even in the purely civil sense as ‘a generally good thing that should be accommodated’) despite the fact that (we think that) it is not, whereas we would simply say that gay people cannot force us to recognize their union as a good thing that should be rewarded with the benefits of civil marriage.

For the most part (although you can find some people who would, I’m sure) we are not advocating telling gay people via the law that they cannot be married, only telling gay people that they cannot force groups who do not think they are married to treat them as though they are.

(There are other arguments against legalizing gay marriage, this is just addressing the ‘imposition of beliefs’ part).

 

[Joe_5859]

There we go! This is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you!

You’re welcome :tiphat:

Just another point to keep in mind, it’s not technically accurate to speak of “outlawing” gay marriage. That implies that gay marriage was legal and acceptable and now the Church is seeking to undo that.

It might seem like a trivial point, but it is important. Someone is trying to impose their views and change the laws, but it’s not the Church.

When we start the conversation on those terms, we’ve already given up more ground than necessary.

 

[SamH]

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

Agreed. Don’t believe in murder - don’t murder people - but don’t impose your belief on others.

Don’t believe in slavery - don’t own a slave - but don’t impose your values on others…

See how it works?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I merely want everyone to be clear, with regards to the Summa (I am making no claims of the rest of Aquina’s writings) you are wrong.

From catholicessentials.net/magisterium.htm

Why get nasty about this? We are agreed on the essentials.

In this post you’ve quoted an obscure website, nothing more. Anyway, Magisterial teaching is by definition episcopal teaching, since the Magisterium is (or is exercised by, if you prefer) the body of bishops. When a priest or professor who is not a bishop writes a book, that is not Magisterial teaching. If it later acquires significance relating to the Ordinary Magisterium it is because of the endorsement of the work by the bishops, not because of the authority of the priest or theologian himself.

Edit: I suggest if you want to debate this further we PM or start a new thread, since it’s getting off topic.

 

[tafan]

Why get nasty about this? We are agreed on the essentials.

In this post you’ve quoted an obscure website, which in turn cites an obscure dictionary. Anyway, Magisterial teaching is by definition episcopal teaching, since the Magisterium is (or is exercised by, if you prefer) the body of bishops. When a priest or professor who is not a bishop writes a book, that is not Magisterial teaching. If it later acquires significance relating to the Ordinary Magisterium it is because of the endorsement of the work by the bishops, not because of the authority of the priest or theologian himself.

Edit: I suggest if you want to debate this further we PM or start a new thread, since it’s getting off topic.

I apologize if I sounded nasty, that was not intended. You said I was wrong, I likewise said you were wrong. I did not take what you said as nasty, just as wrong. You are correct, it should be debated elsewhere. It is a thread drift here and out of place.

 

[Dannel11]

When we start the conversation on those terms, we’ve already given up more ground than necessary.

I started the conversation out like that on purpose because I wanted to focus on why it shouldn’t be legal. Assuming it is already legal (and it is in some places) forces us to come up with concrete reasoning as to why it shouldn’t be.

In other words, I didn’t want shallow responses like, “It has always been that way” or “You need a good reason to change a law”.

Thank you again for you response!

 

[djames99]

Because in fraternal love, we care for others as we care for ourselves. The other guy’s destiny is my/our concern. Our attitude and treatment of others now emulates Jesus’s.
No longer is it “them and us” but “we” and that includes everyone. This is what he meant by being called.

We teach or inform, but no one is imposing, as that would be trying to do what God said he would not do. I think everyone remembers in Oh God! with George Burns where he says “I will not alter their free will choice”, (or words to that effect, also found in scripture). Neither will we as that is imposition. The last act is the subject’s choice to make.

What changes though is that he is no longer invincibly ignorant, right or wrong choice. As soon as he knows the truth and it comes to it’s realization, his state shifts to another category of enlightenment. Gone are the days of wavering from one religion to another, or of no religion. So sliding over on the selection bench to other “clubs” disguised as churches is long behind him. Now excuses no longer mitigate.

In the early years, we owe it to teach the children, and they have no choice, and when they know we cared, they too will thank us. This is why lies to children, like sending them to wander for life in the sacrament deficient wasteland of protestantism, or that spiritual void of despair, terminal atheism, will be especially dealt with.

We are called to do our best that each of us is capable, through our examples for all to see, through evangelization, through every means that life presents. We the laity do this quite simply and with joy, by our day to day social contacts, by our going to Church and our observations, and our promising dispositions and bright outlook on life. We are to shine our light for all to see, our works revealed from under the basket.

We will be asked what we did to try to change the world, not on how successful we were, because we are still in this world and some people will still choose this world instead of the next in spite of our work, …but we need to try.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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

Hi Daniel. Welcome to the forums.

I think that you can respond by pointing out that the only way you can “allow” gay marriage is by re-defining marriage in a way that completely separates the institution from its procreative aspects. But without the procreative aspect, even the most loving same-sex relationship cannot really be considered a “marriage” in the way that society has understood the institution from the beginning.

I noted in your earlier post you raised the concern that “imposing” the traditional definition of marriage would be akin to forcing people to take a cure for cancer. I would tweak that analogy a bit, to say that allowing the definition of marriage to be altered so that it simply meant the public recognition of a committment made between two people, would be akin to taking that cancer cure and diluting it to the point that it becomes ineffective. Or perhaps. Similarly, if we were required to acknowledge two forms of equivalent marriage (traditional and so-callled “gay marriage”) it would be akin to saying that the cancer medication was the same thing as a blood pressure medication. Although blood pressure medication can save lives, and may hold beneficial health properties, it is most certainly not the same thing as the cancer drug. So it goes with marriage. The distinction should remain.

Peace,
Robert

 

[austenbosten]

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.

No I’m not changing the argument to an absolute. I’m simply trying to understand your logic. Your logic from what little I have derived from this conversation is that you have no problems with the Catholic Church imposing its views on Murder, however in regards to Marriage you think Catholics should allow the sanctity of Marriage be revoked to allow homosexuals to marry.

Because as you said that you don’t know why the Church won’t let “sinners be sinners” and to that I must respond that the Church is doing nothing to prevent these homosexuals from engaging in relations, they just are not going to bless it with Marriage.

May I ask you on what your definition of marriage is?

 

[Dannel11]

I already found what I was looking for, but I’ll respond to you so I don’t leave you hanging.

No I’m not changing the argument to an absolute. I’m simply trying to understand your logic. Your logic from what little I have derived from this conversation is that you have no problems with the Catholic Church imposing its views on Murder, however in regards to Marriage you think Catholics should allow the sanctity of Marriage be revoked to allow homosexuals to marry.

It not an imposition of the Church to outlaw murder because society agrees. If two people agree, there is no imposing. The reason why so many people agree with us on the argument against murder is because the consequences are absolute and immediate; Someone was killed, their family will grieve, and their children lost a parent.

For something like gay marriage, the consequences are not so immediate. Since the average person does not like to think past lunch, why should they care if some gays want to get married? No skin off their back. Due to this mentality, public support for the ban on gay marriage is softening and in some places it is already legal. This makes the Church lobbying for banning or keeping the ban on gay marriage an imposition because we now have a difference of opinion and our opinion is the minority.

May I ask you on what your definition of marriage is?

The same one the Catholic Church uses. I do not agree with gay marriage. I am just trying to find the Church’s justification for going against the public-at-large on this. The Church usually shys away from scandal and this issue is a battle that affects the public opinion of the Catholic Church. I’m not saying it isn’t a battle worth fighting. I just want to know the reasoning behind why this issue seems to be so serious. I found my answer here.

 

[Bill_7154]

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

Every example, save one, involves violence and/or the taking of human life. So I think your only valid example as an argument against the OP is racial policies.

 

[Bill_7154]

Personally I think that it is a shame that marriage is tied into government somehow in the first place. I think this cheapens the sacred act of a man and woman joining together in a Catholic Church where the cerimony is performed by a Priest and this sacred act is done under the eyes of God.

Throw goverment into the mix and I think that it takes away from the specialness of marriage. The Catholic Church has rules and they will not marry 2 people of the same gender. But by having government involved in any way, as I said, chepens the special sacred act of becoming married in a religious ceremony.the government is already so invoved in citizens lives as it is, much too involved IMO, and don’t know how government getting involved in marriages came to be, but I am curious to know if anyone happens to know the history of this.

Marriage bonds together a man and woman for life, under the eyes of God, and is the foundation of a family where the man and woman unite and the merecle of a new human life being created. Then the husband and wife devote their time and energy into raising their children to be of good, solid moral character. Eventually the children marry and the cycle is repeated. It is the foundation which our society is built upon. I am personally offended that government sticks its nose into marriages (be it gettting a ‘marriage license’, different tax statuses, etc).

A marriage license from ‘the state’? I think that it is absurd that people are required to get a marriage license from the state and greatly offended by this. As I have already said, I feel that it takes away from the specialness of marriage and believe that all marriages (be they Catholic, Christian, Jewish, whatever recognized religion) lead to the creation of, and sustaining of the human race. I believe it is too important, too special, for the state to have anything to do with it. I believe it should be between a man and woman, in one’s Church, with the ceremony performed by a Priest, a religious celebration taking place under the eyes of God

As an aside, how long before the state starts requiring people to get licenses to drive bycicles, and to get walking licenses?

I would be much happier to live in a society where the governing authority is the Church, a society where all were civilized, honest, and of solid moral character. A society where no one would be violent towards another and no one would steal from another (except maybe to prevent starvation- but if such a society were to exist I am quite confident that anyone without food would be given food by his neighbors.

God Bless,
Bill

 

[wisedom]

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.

you distinguish between evil and sin!

however you assume incorrectly that the (so-called) church is without sin, if you see what i mean!

are you suggesting that sin in the church, even for a moment -aka eternity- is conspicuous…by its absence?

 

[edwest2]

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?

Conversion would mean following what the Church teaches. The Church requires that we know and understand why the Church instructs us as it does. Marriage pre-dates the Church. All laws are put in place because we, as humans, know that men - religious or not - can purposely do things that cause harm to themselves, others and even society as a whole. Laws are there if for no other reason than out of recognition that some men are harmful to others for whatever reason. Sometimes, we, meaning all of us, can do things that are wrong. Driving drunk, accidentally hitting and injuring someone with our car even if we’re not drunk, or leaving ice and snow in front of our house and someone slips, falls and injures themselves. As individuals, religious or not, we have to be mindful that our actions, or inactions, can affect our neighbor.

There is an attempt being made to turn this country into two camps: one strictly secular, that excludes all religious commentary, and one that, while taking secular comments into account, adds its own religious dimension.

Here is Cardinal Dolan outlining the whole thing.

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=121340

Our lives as Catholics mean what? We’re only Catholic at home or at Church and nowhere else? That we, as the laity, should just shut up and not evangelize anyone?

Here is the Church teaching about same-sex marriage:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

And so, prior to same-sex marriage becoming an issue, two gay men could live together and do what they wanted. They can still do that today. Who’s stopping them? As far as I can tell, gay marriage does only two things, it makes gay sex equal to non-gay sex, and it comes with a benefits package. It then forces society to accept gay behavior as a good thing, publicly. Sex was and still should be, a private matter requiring no laws except for coercion with threats of death, as in the case of rape.

Peace,
Ed