…The Church … findthe authority for this in scripture, …
Yes.Are you certain of this? My understanding is that the grounds for annulment have changed over the years, until today, while there is a process, it is pretty much a rubber stamp. Is that untrue? I am asking two distinct questions.
That’s a fairly sweeping statement. I don’t think the CCC says anything like that. It says they are entitled to the same human dignity as anyone else. Your statement would prohibit the law from discriminating, for example, between a gay who committed a crime and heteros who didn’t.… The Catechism already says that we should never support any discrimination against gays. …
What is so terrible about this? In many countries this is already the case, and not just for Catholics. Muslims in the UK have to have two ceremonies, civil and religious. IIRC in France the state does not recognise any religious marriages so everyone who wants a religious marriage has to have two.The end result will be the state will not recognize Church weddings as legal requiring Catholic couples to have 2 Ceremonies.
That’s a fairly sweeping statement. I don’t think the CCC says anything like that. It says they are entitled to the same human dignity as anyone else. Your statement would prohibit the law from discriminating, for example, between a gay who committed a crime and heteros who didn’t.
Catechism said:2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Nope. You know why? Go to your bible. Get a concordance and look up homosexual and then look in your bible at the pages given. That’s why.Three States have approved same-sex marriage in this election. It looks like the Supreme Court, like it did in 1947, will prevent discrimination of people to marry based on race or sexuality. Shouldn’t the Catholic Church reexamine it’s position on homosexuals? Homosexuals have been discriminated against across the ages by the Church for who they love. I have homosexual friends that are in committed relationships that span decades. Is bigotry clouding our view of homosexuals in committed relationships?
Discrimination means making a distinction. Persecution means acting negatively and unfairly toward an individual based on that distinction. I have not read the Catechism, but I would guess that it proscribes persecution, but it does not proscribe discrimination.That’s a fairly sweeping statement. I don’t think the CCC says anything like that. It says they are entitled to the same human dignity as anyone else. Your statement would prohibit the law from discriminating, for example, between a gay who committed a crime and heteros who didn’t.
There is a difference between what a public institution will allow (the us gov’t) and what private organizations (i.e. The Catholic Church) will allow. I can’t see and don’t think the Catholic Church should change its position on homosexuality or marriage. I have homosexual friends and they are very nice people. I don’t descriminate against homosexuals and try and treat them the way I try to treat all people, with respect and showing them dignity. But this is very different than the Catholic Church changing its policies. You can’t just go around changing the bible. It says what it says and it is the word of God.Three States have approved same-sex marriage in this election. It looks like the Supreme Court, like it did in 1947, will prevent discrimination of people to marry based on race or sexuality. Shouldn’t the Catholic Church reexamine it’s position on homosexuals? Homosexuals have been discriminated against across the ages by the Church for who they love. I have homosexual friends that are in committed relationships that span decades. Is bigotry clouding our view of homosexuals in committed relationships?
I think this is exactlly the right attitude to have. When it comes to same sex marriage as a civil institution, though, one must realize that this would be a historic break not just in how marriage is viewed within religions, but how marriage is viewed within civilization as a whole going back for millenia.There is a difference between what a public institution will allow (the us gov’t) and what private organizations (i.e. The Catholic Church) will allow. I can’t see and don’t think the Catholic Church should change its position on homosexuality or marriage. I have homosexual friends and they are very nice people. I don’t descriminate against homosexuals and try and treat them the way I try to treat all people, with respect and showing them dignity. But this is very different than the Catholic Church changing its policies. You can’t just go around changing the bible. It says what it says and it is the word of God.
God Bless,
Bill
If you follow the jurisprudence and body of law leading up to this point, this last step is not as radical as you present it to be. There has been a steady change in our legal definition of gender roles within marriage for 100 years. Now that we are at the point that there is no legal gender distinction in marriage, it follows that there should be no distinction in gender in entering the marriage contract. For 100 years, the goal of feminists has been to eliminate gender distinction. So, now we have it. This is just one more step in a logical progression of social change which began with the goal of equalizing rights and duties between the genders.I think this is exactlly the right attitude to have. When it comes to same sex marriage as a civil institution, though, one must realize that this would be a historic break not just in how marriage is viewed within religions, but how marriage is viewed within civilization as a whole going back for millenia.
Many previous cultures recognized and even tolerated homosexual activities, while not recognizing it as a basis for marriage, not even civil marriage. That is because marriage–between man and woman–is the basis of family, and family is the basis of civilization. Undermine family structure, and civilization ultimately colllapses. It isn’t just a matter of keeping religious people happy. It’s a matter of preserving the structure of society.
I recommend Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization,” as a historical treatise on family structure and what happens when they fail.
So, OP, plan on ever coming back to this thread???Three States have approved same-sex marriage in this election. It looks like the Supreme Court, like it did in 1947, will prevent discrimination of people to marry based on race or sexuality. Shouldn’t the Catholic Church reexamine it’s position on homosexuals? Homosexuals have been discriminated against across the ages by the Church for who they love. I have homosexual friends that are in committed relationships that span decades. Is bigotry clouding our view of homosexuals in committed relationships?
This is so true. It would have been good if the question of SS"M" had brought up a conversation of what marriage is all about and whether we might not have already messed it up, but no, instead we just hastened the demise…If you follow the jurisprudence and body of law leading up to this point, this last step is not as radical as you present it to be. There has been a steady change in our legal definition of gender roles within marriage for 100 years. Now that we are at the point that there is no legal gender distinction in marriage, it follows that there should be no distinction in gender in entering the marriage contract. For 100 years, the goal of feminists has been to eliminate gender distinction. So, now we have it. This is just one more step in a logical progression of social change which began with the goal of equalizing rights and duties between the genders.
The legal argument is surprisingly simple. One can track the progressive change in spousal duties over time. Previously, one “sued” for divorce, only on the grounds of a spouse not meeting the obligations of the marital contract. There were common obligations, such as fidelity. But there were also duties defined by gender. These gender based differences in marriage no longer exist under the law. Alimony, child support, custody… etc, which all were legally presumed to lie with one spouse or another, no longer are.This is so true. It would have been good if the question of SS"M" had brought up a conversation of what marriage is all about and whether we might not have already messed it up, but no, instead we just hastened the demise…
Gender roles change with culture. Human bodies do not.If you follow the jurisprudence and body of law leading up to this point, this last step is not as radical as you present it to be. There has been a steady change in our legal definition of gender roles within marriage for 100 years. Now that we are at the point that there is no legal gender distinction in marriage, it follows that there should be no distinction in gender in entering the marriage contract. For 100 years, the goal of feminists has been to eliminate gender distinction. So, now we have it. This is just one more step in a logical progression of social change which began with the goal of equalizing rights and duties between the genders.
But what really crystalized the feminists’ ability to do that was the availability of contraception…The legal argument is surprisingly simple. One can track the progressive change in spousal duties over time. Previously, one “sued” for divorce, only on the grounds of a spouse not meeting the obligations of the marital contract. There were common obligations, such as fidelity. But there were also duties defined by gender. These gender based differences in marriage no longer exist under the law. Alimony, child support, custody… etc, which all were legally presumed to lie with one spouse or another, no longer are.
So, the argument goes… if there is no gender legal distinction in marriage, then there should be no distinction by gender as to who can marry.
This is the logical outcome of the social and legal changes which started with the feminist movement.
Logical? It’s irrational. Men are not women. That is true for all. Men cannot have babies. “our legal definition”? Who are you talking about? The law does not matter here regarding this subject. There will be no social change in this direction. Just as the Church has fought legalized abortion since 1973, so the same is the case here.If you follow the jurisprudence and body of law leading up to this point, this last step is not as radical as you present it to be. There has been a steady change in our legal definition of gender roles within marriage for 100 years. Now that we are at the point that there is no legal gender distinction in marriage, it follows that there should be no distinction in gender in entering the marriage contract. For 100 years, the goal of feminists has been to eliminate gender distinction. So, now we have it. This is just one more step in a logical progression of social change which began with the goal of equalizing rights and duties between the genders.
I was merely pointing out the legality, not the morality or the biology. There is this odd propensity of the courts. I mean by that, the basis of Roe v. Wade is that the court refused to stipulate when life begins. Yet, they could have asked any embryologist for expert testimony. There is a particular legal reasoning which is not always realistic. This is true with the SSM issue too.Gender roles change with culture. Human bodies do not.
What has not changed is that only opposite sex couples are capable of having marital relations. Same sex couples may engage in a variety of sexual activities, none of which are marital intercourse, none of which are conjugal relations, none of which will ever beget a family.
Human bodies are male and female for the purpose of complementarity. No complementarity, no marital intercourse, no marriage. We can call same sex relations ‘marriage’ but that is simply pretending that it is something that it cannot by nature ever be.
It would be like calling acetic acid ‘water.’