Gay Marriage, Permissible Catholic Views

[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.

[kujo]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1337185629' post='2431254']
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.
[/quote]

Thess, you are beco[color=#282828]ming [/color][color=#282828]my favorite poster, what with your crazy generalizations and total [/color][color=#282828]misunderstanding of people's posts. It's al[/color][color=#282828]most like you didn't read what I said, because if you did, you'd see that I was saying EXACTLY that: the sacra[/color][color=#282828]ment of holy [/color][color=#282828]matri[/color][color=#282828]mony exists with or without the sanctioning of the U.S. govern[/color][color=#282828]ment. If we woke up to[/color][color=#282828]morrow and they said "we will no longer have anything to do with [/color][color=#282828]marriages," the sacra[/color][color=#282828]ment would not change. Si[/color][color=#282828]milarly, there is no way that the federal or state govern[/color][color=#282828]ment could pass a law that would force Catholic priests to [/color][color=#282828]marry 2 gay [/color][color=#282828]men. It's that whole separation of church and state business.

The point I'[/color][color=#282828]m [/color][color=#282828]making is that Catholics don't need govern[/color][color=#282828]ment recognition for their sacra[/color][color=#282828]ment, and so they shouldn't really care what the govern[/color][color=#282828]ment does with their unholy (re: secular) version of it. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "[/color][color=#282828]man is only [/color][color=#282828]married when the laws of [/color][color=#282828]man approve of the [/color][color=#282828]marriage."

And please. Don't bring that "it's like abortion" garbage into this discussion. We've already proven in other threads that your analogical reasoning skills leave so[/color][color=#282828]mething to be desired![/color]

[thessalonian]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337185534' post='2431252']
[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]
[/quote]

Can a gay person be loving and supportive of a child? Certainly. God made us all capable of that. Can another gay person in the same household be loving and supportive. Same question, same answer. But children don't just need love and support. They need maleness and femaleness role modeled. They need to see the differences of men and women in the home. It is ridiculous to say that a father or a mother are expendable for another of the same sex. Of course there are MANY heterosexuals who do a lousy job of parenting from the love and support standpoint. But you are comparing apples to organges when you compare a gay couple who does a good job of this aspect with a heterosexual couple who does a lousy job. Gay homes are not always loving and happy. I was just listening to a murder story last night on the news involving a gay family. In fact there is a high rate of violence and infidelity in gay unions as well.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337185534' post='2431252']
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.[/quote]Just because you can provide examples of heterosexual couples being bad parents and homosexual couples being good parents does not mean that a child does not benefit from both parents.[/color]

[color=#282828]In fact, I would argue that the cases of heterosexual couples being poor parents just proves my point.[/color]

[color=#282828]Now if you were in fact making the opposite point that point that bad kids can come from couples period, then your argument could be used to say also that such kids didn't need parents at all because it didn't matter what the parents did. This is false. Kids have a right to both parents regardless of their later actions. It is part of our nature to need a father and a mother. Furthermore, a child receives more from their parents that simply a sense of morality.[/color]


[color=#282828][quote]And please, gay people are every bit as capable of being loving, supportive, nurturing parents as straight people. It's nonsense to say otherwise.[/quote]I didn't say that. I said that a man and a woman by nature each have something different to offer to their children, just as they do to marriage. Not only is this a teaching of the Catholic Church, it is also an assumption by the government. In my argument, I am pointing out that the government says two contradictory things, and I agree with the point that a mother and a father both matter.[/color]

[color=#282828][quote]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]
[/quote]It isn't a civil right that anyone can adopt from whomever they choose. I don't want to derail this conversation, but adoption isn't as rosy as it's been made out to be. Adoption shouldn't happen willy-nilly, though most of society is deluded to think so.

[kujo]

[quote name='thessalonian' timestamp='1337186022' post='2431258']
Can a gay person be loving and supportive of a child? Certainly. God made us all capable of that. Can another gay person in the same household be loving and supportive. Same question, same answer. But children don't just need love and support. They need maleness and femaleness role modeled. They need to see the differences of men and women in the home. It is ridiculous to say that a father or a mother are expendable for another of the same sex. Of course there are MANY heterosexuals who do a lousy job of parenting from the love and support standpoint. But you are comparing apples to organges when you compare a gay couple who does a good job of this aspect with a heterosexual couple who does a lousy job. Gay homes are not always loving and happy. I was just listening to a murder story last night on the news involving a gay family. In fact there is a high rate of violence and infidelity in gay unions as well.
[/quote]

Of course, there are [font="'Segoe UI"][color="#282828"]just as [/color][/font][color=#282828]many [/color][color=#282828]murders in heterosexual fa[/color][color=#282828]milies. And cheating on one's spouse has sort of been [/color][color=#282828]monopolized by heterosexuals for the past few thousand years, when you think about it.[/color]

[color=#282828]And by your logic about the opti[/color][color=#282828]mu[/color][color=#282828]m [/color][color=#282828]makeup of the fa[/color][color=#282828]mily, you could argue that divorces should be outlawed because a child needs "[/color][color=#282828]maleness and fe[/color][color=#282828]maleness" in their lives. [/color]

[color=#282828]As for your "high rate of violence and infidelity" nonsense, prove it. Show [/color][color=#282828]me statistics. And then show [/color][color=#282828]me those sa[/color][color=#282828]me statistics in heterosexual households. I'll go ahead and hold [/color][color=#282828]my breath, because I'[/color][color=#282828]m [i]totally[/i] confident that you'll be able to prove your bigoted-point before I die of asphyxiation. [/color]

[qfnol31]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1337186010' post='2431256']
Thess, you are beco[color=#282828]ming [/color][color=#282828]my favorite poster, what with your crazy generalizations and total [/color][color=#282828]misunderstanding of people's posts. It's al[/color][color=#282828]most like you didn't read what I said, because if you did, you'd see that I was saying EXACTLY that: the sacra[/color][color=#282828]ment of holy [/color][color=#282828]matri[/color][color=#282828]mony exists with or without the sanctioning of the U.S. govern[/color][color=#282828]ment. If we woke up to[/color][color=#282828]morrow and they said "we will no longer have anything to do with [/color][color=#282828]marriages," the sacra[/color][color=#282828]ment would not change. Si[/color][color=#282828]milarly, there is no way that the federal or state govern[/color][color=#282828]ment could pass a law that would force Catholic priests to [/color][color=#282828]marry 2 gay [/color][color=#282828]men. It's that whole separation of church and state business.[/quote]But what about these two very Catholic teachings: 1) Marriage is more than just sacramental. 2) Marriage is a good of society. That's why it is simply wrong and unCatholic to say that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all.

[quote]The point I'[/color][color=#282828]m [/color][color=#282828]making is that Catholics don't need govern[/color][color=#282828]ment recognition for their sacra[/color][color=#282828]ment, and so they shouldn't really care what the govern[/color][color=#282828]ment does with their unholy (re: secular) version of it. Nowhere in the Bible does it say "[/color][color=#282828]man is only [/color][color=#282828]married when the laws of [/color][color=#282828]man approve of the [/color][color=#282828]marriage."

And please. Don't bring that "it's like abortion" garbage into this discussion. We've already proven in other threads that your analogical reasoning skills leave so[/color][color=#282828]mething to be desired![/color]
[/quote]Catholics don't need it, but society most certainly does. Don't throw out a good just because it's imperfect. The Church has been very clear that we cannot do that in this case. This is also why we don't think that partial-birth abortions should be legal simply because abortion is legal. We're willing to work with what we can and go from there.