Obama Champions Gay Rights

[Dan]

I may not attend the "wedding", but I could go to the reception.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907113' date='Jul 1 2009, 10:11 AM']If there is a seperation of Church and state in this country, who gets to decide the nature of sexual perversion? If there is a significant number of people in the country who believe (and whose faith does not contradict) homosexual relations to be natural and healthy, who gets to decide that their rights in regards to a civil union be denied?[/quote]
You seem to be laboring under the false idea that the natural law is determined by majority opinion. Right reason (which is not to be confused with "rationalization" of any behavior as moral by a majority vote) determines the true nature of moral acts by reference to the end ([i]telos[/i]) of the act in question. Homosexual acts are intrinsically deprived of the proper finality that is inherent to the generative organs of the human person (male and female).

That said, the state is duty bound to defend the dignity of the family, which by its very nature consists of a husband / father and a wife / mother. Sexual activity outside of the marital union of a man and a woman is contrary to the proper end of the generative organs, which are primarily intended for the procreation of children and secondarily for the expression of the love that exists between the spouses. Sexual acts outside of the marriage covenant can never be given legal status by the state, because its (i.e., the state's) powers derive from and are dependent upon God, who created man – male and female – in order to mirror His own internal life of fruitfulness through the sacrificial gift of self in the marital embrace.

In the final analysis, created reason requires the gift of faith, i.e., if it is to know with certainty the true purpose of man's existence, but even without faith it is possible to know that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, because they frustrate – by definition – the generative ability inherent to the sexual organs.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Apotheoun

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Dan' post='1907128' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:29 AM']O.K., marriage is a long-term relationship of two members of the opposite sex. Following the 4000+ years of Judeo-Christian history, the male-female relationship is the only way the plumbing works.[/quote]
Not everyone in this country is Jewish or Christian. There are many other articles of faith which are alive and well in this country. The question is really the separation of Church and state and the reasoning the Church gives for not being okay with civil unions.


[quote name='Norseman82' post='1907130' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:29 AM']Well, if we are playing devil's advocate, can I invite you to my wedding to my cocker spaniel?[/quote]
You can invite me. I don't think I'll go.

All kidding aside, did you just relate a human being to a cocker spaniel? I think you did. Haha. Two human beings falling in love and wanting to live a life together (not to mention being capable of committing their lives to each other in a legal and binding contract) is very different than a human being inflicting their will on another creature, especially one that cannot consent to the treatment. And I'll stress treatment in that case since only one living creature in that equation can make a conscious decision to be married...


[quote name='Dan' post='1907138' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:34 AM']I may not attend the "wedding", but I could go to the reception.[/quote]
That's what I was thinking!!

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1907140' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:34 AM']You seem to be laboring under the false idea that the natural law is determined by majority opinion. Right reason (which is not to be confused with "rationalization" of any behavior as moral by a majority vote) determines the true nature of moral acts by reference to the end ([i]telos[/i]) of the act in question. Homosexual acts are intrinsically deprived of the proper finality that is inherent to the generative organs of the human person (male and female).

That said, the state is duty bound to defend the dignity of the family, which by its very nature consists of a husband / father and a wife / mother. Sexual activity outside of the marital union of a man and a woman is contrary to the proper end of the generative organs, which are primarily intended for the procreation of children and secondarily for the expression of the love that exists between the spouses. Sexual acts outside of the marriage covenant can never be given legal status by the state, because its (i.e., the state's) powers derive from and are dependent upon God, who created man – male and female – in order to mirror His own internal life of fruitfulness through the sacrificial gift of self in the marital embrace.

In the final analysis, created reason requires the gift of faith, i.e., if it is to know with certainty the true purpose of man's existence, but even without faith it is possible to know that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, because they frustrate – by definition – the generative ability inherent to the sexual organs.[/quote]
I do not labor under the false idea that the natural law is determined by majority opinion. Trust me, I do not. However, in this country it is law that others may disagree. Their truth may be the same: that natural law is not determined by majority opinion. However, their truth may differ from ours in that their natural law (regardless of what it may be called) does not view homosexual relations as disordered.

So according the state, it is treating some citizens with a great deal of disrespect. I'm not saying, I'm just saying.

[Niccolò]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907113' date='Jul 1 2009, 12:11 PM']Your view of natural law being binding on all mankind is a part of your faith, is it not?[/quote]

That would be irrelevant. I was responding particularly to musturde's question:

[quote name='musturde' post='1906482' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:37 PM']Why does the Church care if the state recognizes gay marriage?[/quote]

So, natural law is why the Church cares if the state recognizes homosexual unions.

[quote]Homosexual couples cannot be married legally. Because they cannot be married legally, they do not know the benefit of tax breaks for their partnership. I'm sure there are other things. Really, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.[/quote]

The statement presupposes that homosexual couples have a right to legal recognition. In fact, homosexual individuals have all the rights that heterosexual individuals have.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Niccolò' post='1907206' date='Jul 1 2009, 01:42 PM']The statement presupposes that homosexual couples have a right to legal recognition. In fact, homosexual individuals have all the rights that heterosexual individuals have.[/quote]
That would be the nature of the discussion. Why can the Church not allow civil unions to take place? Why must the Church have an opinion on something which happens outside of Her?

(btw - this is really getting tough on my end. I'm giving you your answer without giving you your answer. sheesh.)

[Niccolò]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907208' date='Jul 1 2009, 02:47 PM']That would be the nature of the discussion. Why can the Church not allow civil unions to take place? Why must the Church have an opinion on something which happens outside of Her?

(btw - this is really getting tough on my end. I'm giving you your answer without giving you your answer. sheesh.)[/quote]

Perhaps you should simply state the answer you're looking for, since I think the answers already posted in this thread are sufficient.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Niccolò' post='1907213' date='Jul 1 2009, 01:54 PM']Perhaps you should simply state the answer you're looking for, since I think the answers already posted in this thread are sufficient. [/quote]
That's where I disagree. I don't think the answers actually answer the question. There's a whole lot of argument about what the Church wants and thinks but little reason or explanation as to why the Church has such a problem with what other faiths and political organizations believe. The question was why the Church raises such a stink about civil unions.

Have I given it away enough?

[StColette]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907198' date='Jul 1 2009, 02:29 PM']I do not labor under the false idea that the natural law is determined by majority opinion. Trust me, I do not. However, in this country it is law that others may disagree. Their truth may be the same: that natural law is not determined by majority opinion. However, their truth may differ from ours in that their natural law (regardless of what it may be called) does not view homosexual relations as disordered.[/quote]

I'm a little confused. Are you saying that one person's natural law is different than another person's natural law?

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='StColette' post='1907234' date='Jul 1 2009, 02:25 PM']I'm a little confused. Are you saying that one person's natural law is different than another person's natural law?[/quote]
No.

[Niccolò]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1906659' date='Jun 30 2009, 08:42 PM']CONCLUSION

11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.[/quote]


[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907220' date='Jul 1 2009, 03:09 PM']That's where I disagree. I don't think the answers actually answer the question. There's a whole lot of argument about what the Church wants and thinks but little reason or explanation as to why the Church has such a problem with what other faiths and political organizations believe. The question was why the Church raises such a stink about civil unions.

Have I given it away enough?[/quote]

How is the above quote of Socrates insufficient?

Edited July 1, 2009 by Niccolò

[StColette]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907239' date='Jul 1 2009, 03:29 PM']No.[/quote]


Okay, are you saying that some people's natural law (or whatever they call it) doesn't regard homosexual relationships as disordered?

[quote]However, their truth may differ from ours in that their natural law (regardless of what it may be called) does not view homosexual relations as disordered.[/quote]

I'm just trying to understand this sentence.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Niccolò' post='1907244' date='Jul 1 2009, 02:34 PM']How is the above quote of Socrates insufficient?[/quote]
I guess I'm out of arguments. I don't remember what basis I used when saying his answers did not directly answer Musturde's question. Perhaps I ignored that part? Don't remember.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907198' date='Jul 1 2009, 02:29 PM']Not everyone in this country is Jewish or Christian. There are many other articles of faith which are alive and well in this country. The question is really the separation of Church and state and the reasoning the Church gives for not being okay with civil unions.[/quote]
Go back and read the entire CDF document both I and Apotheoun linked to, and you'll find the Church's reasoning.

Natural law is not something which can only be known by Revelation or Church authority, but can be known through natural reason.
From the introduction:[quote]Since this question relates to the natural moral law,[b] the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.[/b][/quote]

While it is true that the Church has elevated marriage to a sacrament, marriage is in fact a natural-law institution dating back to Adam and Eve, long before Christ established Christian marriage as a sacrament.

In a nutshell, the family (a man, a woman, and their children) are at the foundation of human society, and thus deserving of special support from the state, while sodomistic same-sex "unions" are not.
Again:[quote]Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.[/quote]

Invoking the specter of "separation of Church and state" is bogus. This phrase is found nowhere in the Constitution, but comes from a private letter of Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists assuring them that they would not suffer religious persecution.

The "Establishment Clause" of the first amendment merely prevents Congress from establishing an official tax-supported "national church" like the Church of England (that was what a "establishment of religion" meant.)

It is absurd to claim that this means that Christians must through any moral principles they might have out the window before going into the voting booth, and idea all the founding fathers would have found repugnant, nearly all of them agreeing that morality is necessary for the survival of a free republic.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. [b]Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.[/b]" --John Adams, October 11, 1798

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. [b]We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.[/b]” -- James Madison ("the Father of the Constitution") [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]



[quote]You can invite me. I don't think I'll go.

All kidding aside, did you just relate a human being to a cocker spaniel? I think you did. Haha. Two human beings falling in love and wanting to live a life together (not to mention being capable of committing their lives to each other in a legal and binding contract) is very different than a human being inflicting their will on another creature, especially one that cannot consent to the treatment. And I'll stress treatment in that case since only one living creature in that equation can make a conscious decision to be married...[/quote]
According to your own logic, you have no reason for imposing "your truth" here, as others' "truths" may differ from your own.

[quote]I do not labor under the false idea that the natural law is determined by majority opinion. Trust me, I do not. However, in this country it is law that others may disagree. Their truth may be the same: that natural law is not determined by majority opinion. However, their truth may differ from ours in that their natural law (regardless of what it may be called) does not view homosexual relations as disordered.

So according the state, it is treating some citizens with a great deal of disrespect. I'm not saying, I'm just saying.[/quote]
That others may disagree is irrelevant as to how Catholics should vote. People will disagree about almost every law.
And there can be only one truth and one natural law - your "argument" reeks of moral relativism.

As Catholic citizens, it is our duty do what we can to ensure that our state and national laws are in accord with natural law and the common good, not opposed to it.

The Church teaches that Catholics are [b]obliged[/b] to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions.[quote][b]If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians.[/b][/quote]

Human law should be in line with God's natural law and promote the common good, not actively promote sin and perversion.

[Kitty]

I hate Obama, but I think gay people should be able to get married if they want.

[Resurrexi]

Kitty, it is not possible for two persons of the same sex to validly marry.

[Kitty]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1907857' date='Jul 2 2009, 01:06 AM']Kitty, it is not possible for two persons of the same sex to validly marry.[/quote]

Well I don't agree with that.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Kitty' post='1907912' date='Jul 2 2009, 12:36 AM']Well I don't agree with that.[/quote]

The Magisterium does.

[OraProMe]

I can't wait till the world rips you apart, Resurrexi. Honestly it will be very good for you to realize believing something because the magisterium says so isn't good.

Enjoy adulthood

[musturde]

[quote name='OraProMe' post='1907933' date='Jul 2 2009, 02:40 AM']I can't wait till the world rips you apart, Resurrexi. Honestly it will be very good for you to realize believing something because the magisterium says so isn't good.

Enjoy adulthood [/quote]

I agree. I'm still not really satisfied with many of the answers.
As a true Catholic, there should be more thought to hard situations than simply "the Church says it". That's very lazy. I honestly doubt the great minds of the Church got where they did by this train of thought.

Now, the problem I find is that if we think of state marriage as a mere civil contract, there should be no reason that gay people should be bereft of the benefits that come from this contract. Whether it is natural law for gays to marry is irrelevant. The lifestyle many homosexual people live in now is almost marriage without the seal. Allowing gay marriage does not promote homosexuality, it only allows certain rights for those who choose to live the lifestyle they are already living.

Edited July 2, 2009 by musturde

[OraProMe]

People with a dogmatic view of the world honestly disgust me. I like differences of opinion and I'm friends with a fair few hardcore catholics. Ignorance on the other hand........