Gay Marriage, Permissible Catholic Views

[dairygirl4u2c]

"I don't see how as a Catholic one can say it should be left to the states. It is left to God and he has spoken!"

you should have voiced this sentiment in the poll itself, as i was seeking this opinion the most, to see if it exists.

isn't there something moral about "letting people, societies, do as they will.... as long as it's not hurting your people, state, or theirs" etc etc. basically, it's about respect.
plus it's not like "not voting" to ban, at least in this case, is something that could be culpable for as you are not doing anything... ie, it may be wrong to vote for gay marriage, but to do nothing isnt wrong..... ?

[dairygirl4u2c]

"The problem seems to be after creating civil unions, then letting that " union" be a family/parent unit. I have no qualms with any two or eleven adults creating a civil union for a mutually agreed upon sharing of rights, wealth, and shared responsibility.

However, when it comes to a family unit that will raise children, I have serious concerns. I also acknowledge that heterosexuality does not guarantee good parenting."

well said and my sentiments exactly. children should be adopted by a man and a woman, but let civil unions be with whomever. perhaps a child being with gay parents is better than being on the streets or certain foster homes? i don't know but i agree with the sentiment generally.
some might try to argue against civil unions etc due to "eleven" people wanting to join. i'd actually say 'sure' to that too, at least as long as we're doing marraiges or unions in general. it's about trying to respect other people's way of life as much as possible and treating people equally, as much as possible

-------------------------------

incest laws should exist. incest causes fetal abnormalities if a pregnancy occurs. this would be about protecting potential life.... not so much about the familial relation in question in and of itself.

Edited May 14, 2012 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

As the Constitution says nothing whatever about marriage and its definition, it is clear that constitutionally this issue belongs to the people or to the states respectively, via the Tenth Amendment. And I don't give a poo what "Emanations of the Penumbra" activist judges might pull out of their asses to say otherwise.

Of course, according to natural law, we understand that homosexual sodomy cannot be equivalent to a union of man and woman which is open to the procreation of new human life, something sodomy can never do.

I would not be opposed a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman. For those who scream that this creates some huge crisis of the "state defining marriage":
1) It does not define it, but merely recognizes the reality that already exists.

2) The problem is that activist liberal federal courts are already trying to impose their own (false) definition of marriage on states where the people vote not to recognize "gay marriage" (ie. the state of California). If the state is going to "define" marriage, I'd much rather it be done lawfully and morally by the process of constitutional amendment, than by judges "legislating from the bench" to enforce their view on the respective states in blatant denial of the constitution.

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337048189' post='2430710']
As the Constitution says nothing whatever about marriage and its definition, it is clear that constitutionally this issue belongs to the people or to the states respectively, via the Tenth Amendment. And I don't give a poo what "Emanations of the Penumbra" activist judges might pull out of their asses to say otherwise.[/QUOTE]

So Virginia v. Love is unconstitutional in your opinion?

[QUOTE]Of course,[s] according to natural law[/s] my personal fairy-tale, we understand that homosexual sodomy cannot be equivalent to a union of man and woman which is open to the procreation of new human life, something sodomy can never do.[/QUOTE]

Fxd.

[QUOTE]I would not be opposed a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to one man and one woman. For those who scream that this creates some huge crisis of the "state defining marriage":
1) It does not define it, but merely recognizes the reality that already exists. [/QUOTE]

I don't see how seeing as some states do recognize gay marriage.

[QUOTE] 2) The problem is that activist liberal federal courts are already trying to impose their own (false) definition of marriage on states where the people vote not to recognize "gay marriage" (ie. the state of California). If the state is going to "define" marriage, I'd much rather it be done lawfully and morally by the process of constitutional amendment, than by judges "legislating from the bench" to enforce their view on the respective states in blatant denial of the constitution.
[/quote]

Yeah. floopy the 14th Amendment!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1337056400' post='2430778']
So Virginia v. Love is unconstitutional in your opinion?



Fxd.



I don't see how seeing as some states do recognize gay marriage.



Yeah. floopy the 14th Amendment!
[/quote]
"Gay marriage" is not about equal protection under the law (per the 14th amendment), but redefining the meaning of "marriage" in accord with a politically correct agenda. So go floopy yourself.

If I want to enter into a (completely nonsexual) contract of some sort with my brother, sister, and mother, and call it a "marriage," the state is not denying me equal protection under the law by not recognizing it as a marriage.

The contract in this case would not even be morally problematic, and could probably be secured by power of attorney, but it would have nothing to do with marriage, and the state would be under absolutely no obligation to recognize it as such, simply because I want it to.

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337128942' post='2431069']
"Gay marriage" is not about equal protection under the law (per the 14th amendment), but redefining the meaning of "marriage" in accord with a politically correct agenda. So go floopy yourself.

If I want to enter into a (completely nonsexual) contract of some sort with my brother, sister, and mother, and call it a "marriage," the state is not denying me equal protection under the law by not recognizing it as a marriage.

The contract in this case would not even be morally problematic, and could probably be secured by power of attorney, but it would have nothing to do with marriage, and the state would be under absolutely no obligation to recognize it as such, simply because I want it to.
[/quote]

Then riddle me this:

What's the point of having state-sponsored "marriage?"

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1337128942' post='2431069']
"Gay marriage" is not about equal protection under the law (per the 14th amendment), but redefining the meaning of "marriage" in accord with a politically correct agenda. So go floopy yourself.

If I want to enter into a (completely nonsexual) contract of some sort with my brother, sister, and mother, and call it a "marriage," the state is not denying me equal protection under the law by not recognizing it as a marriage.

The contract in this case would not even be morally problematic, and could probably be secured by power of attorney, but it would have nothing to do with marriage, and the state would be under absolutely no obligation to recognize it as such, simply because I want it to.
[/quote]

As usual you dodge the difficult issue. Was Virginia v. Love wrongly decided law?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337141836' post='2431128']
Then riddle me this:

What's the point of having state-sponsored "marriage?"
[/quote]State-sponsored marriage, as we have it now, is defending a particular good of society, albeit imperfectly.

Not everything has to be defended perfectly to be of good use to citizens.

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337145406' post='2431142']
State-sponsored marriage, as we have it now, is defending a particular good of society, albeit imperfectly.

Not everything has to be defended perfectly to be of good use to citizens.
[/quote]

Uh huh.

And who is the decider of what societal "good" ought to be defended by the state? Because, last I checked, this was not a theocracy, where Biblical morality is sanctioned and enforced by the coercive nature of the state.

Essentially what I'm saying goes back to a point made by either cmom or Lil Red in either this thread, or the one about being a Catholic Democrat: Catholics and Christians ought to focus their attention on strengthening the sacrament of holy matrimony. Don't be concerned with what the state and its government wants to do with "marriage."

[qfnol31]

A societal good can be self-evident, as it is in this case.

Why don't you believe in polygamy?

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337146783' post='2431145']
Essentially what I'm saying goes back to a point made by either cmom or Lil Red in either this thread, or the one about being a Catholic Democrat: Catholics and Christians ought to focus their attention on strengthening the sacrament of holy matrimony. Don't be concerned with what the state and its government wants to do with "marriage."
[/quote]The USCCB says otherwise. I trust their opinion.

I also think that there is some good to be had in defending marriage, and making sure that the state doesn't get rid of the only good left.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1336933700' post='2430240']
leave it to the states. this is not a power reserved to the feds per the Constitution.



then...those that allow the abomination can be kicked out of the union. let them form their own country.
[/quote]
We already tried this. Seems that the federal government doesn't like states to try to form their own sovereignty based upon their views.

[kujo]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337147235' post='2431149']
The USCCB says otherwise. I trust their opinion.

I also think that there is some good to be had in defending marriage, and making sure that the state doesn't get rid of the only good left.
[/quote]

The state has very little to do with the ascent or decline in respect for holy matrimony.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1337147155' post='2431148']
A societal good can be self-evident, as it is in this case.

Why don't you believe in polygamy?
[/quote]

It's not self-evident, because, if it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And I have no opinion one way or the other on polygamy. I'm not gonna do it, and neither is my wife-to-be. If others wanna do it, I don't really see how that's any business of mine, nor do I see what vested interest my government has in regulating or prohibiting it, assuming that there isn't any coercion of will involved, and that all parties were of legal age and what not.

[qfnol31]

[quote]The state has very little to do with the ascent or decline in respect for holy matrimony.[/quote]
That's like saying that the government has little to do with the respect for life and so we shouldn't make abortion illegal.

1) Fewer gay people will get "married" if it's illegal, as has been evidenced by law in our country for a while now. The same is true for abortion.
2) Second, holy matrimony is not exactly the same as natural marriage. Two non-baptized people can get married and it's not sacramental, but it's still a valid, licit marriage. This is a certain teaching of the Catholic Church, which ends up being recognized by societies all over the world and at all points in history, even if not in those terms.
[quote]It's not self-evident, because, if it were, we wouldn't be having this conversation.[/quote]
Something can be self-evident and people can still choose to ignore it for various reasons. I'll use abortion again. Partial-birth abortion is obviously killing a baby, and science can back this up, but people choose to ignore it.

Marriage is self-evidently a good of society because it is the core of the family, and the family is the core and beginning of society. I've posted on here that the role of parents is very important in the development of children and the government recognizes this. President Obama has instructed fathers to take an active role in the development of their children: http://www.fatherhood.gov/ If being a father is so important, then being a mother is also important. Moreover, these two roles are best fulfilled in a united couple. When a man and a woman are married, their relationship with each other has something to offer their children. We see more problems in children from broken families than those whose parents are solidly married. Again, even President Obama and his administration admits this (as does HHS): http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/

[quote]Researchers have found many benefits for children and youth who are raised by parents in healthy marriages, compared to unhealthy marriages, including the following:
More likely to attend college
More likely to succeed academically
Physically healthier
Emotionally healthier
Less likely to attempt or commit suicide
Demonstrate less behavioral problems in school
Less likely to be a victim of physical or sexual abuse
Less likely to abuse drugs or alcohol
Less likely to commit delinquent behaviors
Have a better relationship with their mothers and fathers
Decreases their chances of divorcing when they get married
Less likely to become pregnant as a teenager, or impregnate someone.
Less likely to be sexually active as teenagers
Less likely to contract STD's
Less likely to be raised in poverty[/quote]

[quote]And I have no opinion one way or the other on polygamy. I'm not gonna do it, and neither is my wife-to-be. If others wanna do it, I don't really see how that's any business of mine, nor do I see what vested interest my government has in regulating or prohibiting it, assuming that there isn't any coercion of will involved, and that all parties were of legal age and what not.
[/quote]Our society is against polygamy as a whole because of its detriment to the family. Since you're okay with polygamy, how about consanguinity?

[Anomaly]

Some thoughts/ideas/opinions I think I'll let fly. I've got mixed feelings about this issue in the context of my personal values of what's beneficial for general society tempering what I'd selfishly would want for myself or friends. I think the problem lies with our fundamental definitions and puposes of marriages within society as a larger community and what individuals desire for themselves.

Originally/traditionally, marriage was seen as a man and woman creating a life long union with the intent to care for each other and procreate. Without birth control, children were considered a natural result. Society recognized the long term benefits of protecting and promoting such a union. There was/is good for the stability of society in producing additional healthy citizens as well as promoting the happiness and stability of the couple. It was a means of protecting property that was earned or gained by the couple and transfering it to the benefit of their progeney and/or other family.

Today, as a result of birth control and technological advances, people and afford to be more self centered, or completely self centered. The happiness and wealth of adults far outweigh the happiness or health of the children. It's one thing for a couple to seperate because of abuse or possbile danger to the children or one of the spouses. It's quite another to divorce because one of the adults now has decided they no longer love their spouse enough, regardless of what's best for their children (providing a stable, secure, sound home environment for them). Almost all married couples w/ kids have problems and arguments. It used to be expected you didn't fight or denigrate each other in front of the kids. It used to be expected you didn't use children as weapons or pawns in your disagreements.

No marriage is perfect, but traditionally it's intent was for better or worse, happiness or unhappiness, sickness or health, wealth or poverty, because of the commitment to each other AND children.

Society found it beneficial to promote and provide benifits to couples that wanted to commit to each other and possibly procreate. Religions and human behavior recognized those values on a sacred level as well as on a sociological aspect.

Civil unions that are easily made and easily broken and are just focused on the couple, regardless of children, just don't have the significant benefit to society. Catholicism, most religions and some philosophies , value the ideal natural family unit as the goal to strive for. Same sex couples are not ever going to naturally procreate. Other family units that happen when a spouse or parents die, are inconpacitated, or broken for grave reasons, should not be punished, but I don't see any argument why they should be as promoted as being equal to the ideal. I don't see any benefit to society as a whole when the standards of behavior are brought down to the lowest common denominator and ideals are not promoted as goals.

Same sex marriage is not the same as allowing civil unions. Society recognizes the union of marriage as an social institurion to to provide civil rights to protect the custody, care, and rights of the children and parents in the family unit, while promoting the ideal goal for behavior, shared responsibility, and commitemnt of a family unit. Same Sex Marriage and/or civil units denigrates the idea of a life long bond of family, putting individual happiness and desire above commitment to the welfare of the family. Same sex marriage and civil unions create the idea that a family union/bond, is only a temporary joining, subject to the desire and whims of the adults, with no expectation that the union expects a life long commitment of caring for, sacrificing for, and for the mutual benefit of each other, children, and society as a whole.

[Basilisa Marie]

And many of the points Anomaly made are why I've heard many gay rights activists arguing for [i]marriage[/i], not just civil unions, because marriages are built to last and are the foundation of a family, while civil unions are just contracts that might give two adults some tax benefits or whatnot.

[kujo]

Sa[color=#282828]me sex couples can adopt or have a child with a surrogate. So, they are able to raise children just like straight couples.[/color]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337184436' post='2431246']
Sa[color=#282828]me sex couples can adopt or have a child with a surrogate. So, they are able to raise children just like straight couples.[/color]
[/quote]Adoption is not the same as begetting a child. It plays a secondary role to a couple's natural ability to procreate.

Adoption of children by same-sex couples is to the detriment of the children. A child has a right to a mother and a father and it is not fair to take that right away from them.

As an aside, did you know that the Catholic Church cannot deny adoptions to same-sex couples? Lack of freedom of religion.

[kujo]

Well, for starters, a turkey dinner is better than a Hot Pocket. But they'll both get the job done when you're hungry.

This is not to say that straight parents are "better" than gay ones. History is replete with insufferable twits being reared by the [color=#282828]most heterosexual of couples. While you [/color][color=#282828]may believe that one situation is [/color][color=#282828]more ideal than another, other people--and the justice syste[/color][color=#282828]m of the U.S.-- don't have to abide by your opinion. Or the Church's, for that [/color][color=#282828]matter.[/color]

[color=#282828]And please, gay people are every bit as capable of being loving, supportive, nurturing parents as straight people. It's nonsense to say otherwise.[/color]

[color=#282828]I a[/color][color=#282828]m aware of the Church's position on sa[/color][color=#282828]me-sex adopting, and I'[/color][color=#282828]m also aware that they are not allowed to discri[/color][color=#282828]minate based on sexual-orientation, or race, or disability, when trying to place a child in a loving, happy ho[/color][color=#282828]me[/color][color=#282828]. Civil rights smell of elderberries, right?[/color]

[thessalonian]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337146783' post='2431145']
Essentially what I'm saying goes back to a point made by either cmom or Lil Red in either this thread, or the one about being a Catholic Democrat: Catholics and Christians ought to focus their attention on strengthening the sacrament of holy matrimony. Don't be concerned with what the state and its government wants to do with "marriage."
[/quote]

Why does being concerned about strengthening the sacrament of holy matrimony imply in any way that we should not be involved in the discussion of what government does with marriage? I sure hope that is not what you are implying. I guess my bishop is wrong in organizing in favor of the marriage amendment in Minnesota. Yes marriage needs to be built up. That is the sad reason as to why we are in this mess. But the favorite tool of the evil one is to silence those who are for truth. We are called as Catholics to participate in politics and to defend truth. Your statement is like saying we should support life and not worry about all the "legal" abortions going on. Sad.