Should Homosexual Marriage Be Banned?

[Theoketos]

Some thing else to consider to wrap this up

[quote]Man always has before him the spiritual horizon of hope, thanks to the help of divine grace and with the cooperation of human freedom.

It is in the saving Cross of Jesus, in the gift of the Holy Spirit, in the Sacraments which flow forth from the pierced side of the Redeemer (cf. Jn 19:34), that believers find the grace and the strength always to keep God's holy law, even amid the gravest of hardships. As Saint Andrew of Crete observes, the law itself "was enlivened by grace and made to serve it in a harmonious and fruitful combination. Each element preserved its characteristics without change or confusion. In a divine manner, he turned what could be burdensome and tyrannical into what is easy to bear and a source of freedom".163

Only in the mystery of Christ's Redemption do we discover the "concrete" possibilities of man. "It would be a very serious error to conclude... that the Church's teaching is essentially only an "ideal" which must then be adapted, proportioned, graduated to the so-called concrete possibilities of man, according to a "balancing of the goods in question". But what are the "concrete possibilities of man" ? And of which man are we speaking? Of man dominated by lust or of man redeemed by Christ? This is what is at stake: the reality of Christ's redemption. Christ has redeemed us! This means that he has given us the possibility of realizing the entire truth of our being; he has set our freedom free from the domination of concupiscence. And if redeemed man still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ's redemptive act, but to man's will not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act. God's command is of course proportioned to man's capabilities; but to the capabilities of the man to whom the Holy Spirit has been given; of the man who, though he has fallen into sin, can always obtain pardon and enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit"[/quote]

[Didacus]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 25 2005, 08:15 AM']Yes the government has  a role in moral issues.  But what does the Catechism say about sacraments?
Through the ministers of hi Church.  That's what I'm saying.  Does government have a responsibility to create laws over society?  Who would argue against that?  But government does not have a role in dispensing sacraments.

I don't see a flaw in my logic at all.
[right][snapback]769809[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

its not a question of goverment dispensing sacraments, its a question of the goverment respecting the morality underlined within them.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Oct 25 2005, 10:46 AM']its not a question of goverment dispensing sacraments, its a question of the goverment respecting the morality underlined within them.
[right][snapback]769956[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If I may butt in, the government DOES marry people. And divorce people. It's gone and coopted a sacrament and redefined it in secular terms.

[Jaime]

Exactly what Abby said.

And correct me if I'm wrong Didacus but doesn't the Canadian govt have stipulations about common law marriage?

[Norseman82]

Whether or not government should be involved in a sacrament is irrelvant, as a civil marriage is not a sacramental marriage. At least not in today's world (in the past, I have heard that marriage was a civil matter, but that is a separate discussion and I don't know all the details regarding it).

But that being said, it is irrelevant.

Government sanctioned homosexual marriages/civil unions, even though non-sacramental, still put society on record as accepting it. By prohibiting these so-called marriages/civil unions, society takes a stand and goes on record as not accepting it.

What are we as a society promoting?

[termitescoming4u!]

I'm in with photosynthesis on this issue. gay "marriage" legalization shouldn't even make it to the courts because it's such a pathetic and shameful issue to bring before the courts.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Oct 25 2005, 12:10 PM']Whether or not government should be involved in a sacrament is irrelevant, as a civil marriage is not a sacramental marriage.  At least not in today's world (in the past, I have heard that marriage was a civil matter, but that is a separate discussion and I don't know all the details regarding it).

But that being said, it is irrelevant. 

Government sanctioned homosexual marriages/civil unions, even though non-sacramental, still put society on record as accepting it.  By prohibiting these so-called marriages/civil unions, society takes a stand and goes on record as not accepting it.

What are we as a society promoting?
[right][snapback]770033[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Marriage is, by definition, a sacrament. If a civil "marriage" isn't sacramental, then it ain’t marriage – and shouldn’t be called marriage – whether we’re talking about gay or straight couples.

The state's primary (not only, but primary) interest in marriage stems from the contractual relationship the two people enter into -- from the disposition of goods and property, and from the promised care for one another and children. Looking at it from this perspective, a homosexual couple can find ways to get most of the legal benefits of marriage without getting a marriage certificate. Guardianship and adoption permit gay couples to care for children and to make medical, school, financial, and other decisions for those children. Advance directives allow one partner in a relationship to make medical and legal decisions in a medical emergency. Wills cover property disposal after death. Courts have even ordered child support from gay couples who’ve split up. Heterosexual couples get all these benefits just by signing a piece of paper.

Whether we like it or not, there are gay couples living among us. They're sending kids to schools. They're working and paying taxes. They're owning homes and other property together. They’re caring for one another through illness and death. I don’t think it’s a matter of “accepting” these couples. They’re here. I sat across from one at dinner last week. Unless I choose to ignore them, I have to accept that they exist. And, it’s indisputable that they deal with legal issues – many of the same legal issues that heterosexual couples deal with.

Even my evangelical Protestant uber-fundamentalist Dad allows for the possibility of some form of domestic partnership. He reasons that if Solomon can administer justice to two harlots – both of whom should’ve been stoned for their sin under Jewish law – there must be some justification for allowing gay couples a means of establishing a legal domestic relationship.

As Catholics, do we hold society as a whole to the same standards to which we hold ourselves? If so, where do we draw the line? Gay domestic partnerships? Contraception? Regular Mass attendance? What is just here? What is merciful?

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Oct 24 2005, 10:52 PM']How many times do I have to say that I am not advocating for gay marriage?

Seriously, how many times?  Just let me know! 

I know you've read my posts Socrates.  I don't know why you intend to misinterpret them.

Speaking of flaws
And I would respond with Church dogma
Like other religious practices that predate Christ.  The sacrament of marriage wrought an external lawful purity prior to Christ coming to earth. 

The state and federal government has no place whatsoever in marriage.  Honestly Socrates I don't know why you aren't arguing this point yourself.

I have no problems with Texans voting for the ammendment save one.  The state and federal government has no place in Marriage.
[right][snapback]769674[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

While I respectfully disagree with you that the government should not recognize ANY marriages, what I really have a problem with is your insisting that it is "unconstitutional" to let one's religious beliefs or values influence one's political actions, as expressed in the following quotes from your posts.
[quote]On issues like civil unions, do I have the right to impose my Catholic beliefs on a system that is clearly not religious?[/quote]
[quote]The thing that keeps on getting in my way is stuff like the first ammendment

Is the ability for a homosexual couple to have a civil union a matter of their religious beliefs? No but my objection is from my religious beliefs. Therefore my objection is of personal opinion and not constitutional[/quote]

As I have shown, such a misinterpretation of the first amendment is false, and I believe it is disasterous if Catholics accept this radical secularist misinterpretation.

It is nothing more than a strategy by militant atheists to keep religion and any "religious values" completely out of the public sphere, and Christians need to fight this as the malicious nonsense that it is, not idly accept it.

Edited October 25, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Oct 25 2005, 03:41 PM']Marriage is, by definition, a sacrament. If a civil "marriage" isn't sacramental, then it ain’t marriage – and shouldn’t be called marriage – whether we’re talking about gay or straight couples.

The state's primary (not only, but primary) interest in marriage stems from the contractual relationship the two people enter into -- from the disposition of goods and property, and from the promised care for one another and children. Looking at it from this perspective, a homosexual couple can find ways to get most of the legal benefits of marriage without getting a marriage certificate. Guardianship and adoption permit gay couples to care for children and to make medical, school, financial, and other decisions for those children. Advance directives allow one partner in a relationship to make medical and legal decisions in a medical emergency. Wills cover property disposal after death. Courts have even ordered child support from gay couples who’ve split up. Heterosexual couples get all these benefits just by signing a piece of paper. 

Whether we like it or not, there are gay couples living among us. They're sending kids to schools. They're working and paying taxes. They're owning homes and other property together. They’re caring for one another through illness and death. I don’t think it’s a matter of “accepting” these couples. They’re here. I sat across from one at dinner last week. Unless I choose to ignore them, I have to accept that they exist. And, it’s indisputable that they deal with legal issues – many of the same legal issues that heterosexual couples deal with.

Even my evangelical Protestant uber-fundamentalist Dad allows for the possibility of some form of domestic partnership. He reasons that if Solomon can administer justice to two harlots – both of whom should’ve been stoned for their sin under Jewish law – there must be some justification for allowing gay couples a means of establishing a legal domestic relationship.

As Catholics, do we hold society as a whole to the same standards to which we hold ourselves? If so, where do we draw the line? Gay domestic partnerships? Contraception? Regular Mass attendance? What is just here? What is merciful?
[right][snapback]770192[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Catholic marriages are sacraments, but people of all religions have marriage. It is a natural part of human society, indeed the fundamental part of any human society. Marriage is the union of man and woman for the purpose of procreation and raising children.
This is recognized by all human societies, whether Catholic or protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, what have you. Would you put the marriage of a non-Catholic man and woman on par with a homosexual "union"?
The government thus recognizes marriage as a necessary part of civil society, and supports it. This is all in the realm of natural law.

Two homosexuals sodomizing one another is clearly not a marriage, and was thus never recognized by the law as one until a couple years ago. Such a "union" can never produce children, and thus it should in no way be compared to marriage.
To do so makes a mockery of marriage, and merely gives "legitimacy" to the "homosexual lifestyle." That is the entire purpose of the push for "gay marriage" and "civil unions."

Because marriage and family are part of and fundamental to any human society, whatever the religion, as our civil society has recognized, this cannot be fairly painted as a purely religious issue, as if the state were regulating reception of Holy Communion.

The state has never denied validity to Catholic marriage, so I think it far fetched to say legal recognition of marriage constitutes a threat to the sacrament of marriage. Opposing "gay marriage" does not extend the power of the state over marriage, but merely prevents it from completely redefining "marriage" and giving further "legitimacy" to perversion.

And even if you are against state recognition of any marriages, it is irrational to say, as many here seem to argue, that so long as the state recognizes marriage, it must extend this legal recognition to homosexual "couples" and Catholics should do nothing to oppose this.

I think everyone needs to read the statement from Cardinal Ratzinger quoted on the first post in this thread before they argue that we should accept "gay marriages" and "civil unions."

Edited October 25, 2005 by Socrates

[Sojourner]

Socrates ... you're putting words in my mouth and arguing against points I never made. I'll respond more fully later, but it's late and I'm tired.

[Norseman82]

Abby, I need to caution you on these points.

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Oct 25 2005, 03:41 PM']Even my evangelical Protestant uber-fundamentalist Dad allows for the possibility of some form of domestic partnership. He reasons that if Solomon can administer justice to two harlots – both of whom should’ve been stoned for their sin under Jewish law – there must be some justification for allowing gay couples a means of establishing a legal domestic relationship.
[right][snapback]770192[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There is a difference between showing mercy and administering justice and giving tacit approval to a sin. As I recall, the case of the two harlots regarded child stealing, not harlotry. And when Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery, He said "from now on avoid this sin". When we show mercy, we must do so in a way that does not cooperate or give tacit approval to sin, otherwise we can be held responsible for others' sins. CCC 2286-2287 especially speak to laws; see also CCC 1868.

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Oct 25 2005, 03:41 PM']As Catholics, do we hold society as a whole to the same standards to which we hold ourselves? If so, where do we draw the line? Gay domestic partnerships? Contraception? Regular Mass attendance? What is just here? What is merciful?
[right][snapback]770192[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

To compare gay domestic partnerships and contraception with Mass attendance is like comparing apples to pierogi. Mass attendance is a denominational issue that is internal to the Catholic Church (other denominations and non-Christian religions have their own worship services), whereas such things as homosexal partnerships, contraception, and abortion are immoral [i]regardless of what religion (or lack thereof) one is[/i]. This is known as [i]natural law[/i].

[Sojourner]

As a caveat, this is definitely an issue I'm still working through. Norseman, your points are well taken.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating any form of homosexual marriage. Socrates, you're quite right that two men or two women can never truly be in union. I have no issues with categorically denying homosexual marriage in any arena, church or state.

At the same time, I believe the state shouldn't have a hand in creating marriages, period, and shouldn't have the opportunity to re-define marriage by statute. Recognizing the validity of a marriage blessed by the church is one thing. Creating marriages through the justice or executive branch system is quite another.

I also believe there are real legal issues arising from the fact that there are homosexual couples, and that we need to find some way to address these issues. Standing in moral judgment of these couples' lifestyles isn't going to make these issues go away. However, I'm not sure what that way should be. I'm simply not convinced that, as things stand, justice is being properly administered.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Oct 26 2005, 11:22 AM']As a caveat, this is definitely an issue I'm still working through. Norseman, your points are well taken.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating any form of homosexual marriage. Socrates, you're quite right that two men or two women can never truly be in union. I have no issues with categorically denying homosexual marriage in any arena, church or state.

At the same time, I believe the state shouldn't have a hand in creating marriages, period, and shouldn't have the opportunity to re-define marriage by statute. Recognizing the validity of a marriage blessed by the church is one thing. Creating marriages through the justice or executive branch system is quite another.

I also believe there are real legal issues arising from the fact that there are homosexual couples, and that we need to find some way to address these issues. Standing in moral judgment of these couples' lifestyles isn't going to make these issues go away. However, I'm not sure what that way should be. I'm simply not convinced that, as things stand, justice is being properly administered.
[right][snapback]771073[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I guess I could dicuss this better if I were more clear as to exactly what you are advocating.

Are you saying the state should only recognize Catholic sacramental marriages? Only marriages performed in some religious ceremony?
What about atheists or other non-believers getting married?
Should married couples have no legal or tax benefits whatsoever, and be treated just the same as single individuals?
Until we live in a theocracy, the first two options appear unlikely.
While it is obvious that there are abuses of this system, does this mean that the law should do nothing to aid families?

How would you suggest that Catholics vote on "gay marriage" and "civil union" laws?

While you reject legal recognition of "gay marriage," you seem to imply that the state should grant similar legal benefits to homosexual couples.

I am single, and receive no such benefits. Are you saying that if I shacked up with another man in a "gay relationship," I should then be awarded certain legal benefits similar to those enjoyed by married couples? Homosexual couples deserve benefits not enjoyed by single folks?
Why should homosexual sodomy be rewarded by the law?
Especially if, as you noted earlier, homosexuals can already find other ways to get these benefits?

Children do not come out of a homosexual "relationship." Thus the issues with children should be a moot point. And why should we arrange things legally to make it easier for "gays" to adopt children, or for parents to "adopt a gay lifestyle"?
This is not about "justice," but about making certain immoral choices rewarding and "beneificial" legally and financially.

In theory at least, married couples enjoy benefits from the state, because marriage and family is recognized as a social good, and thus families are helped and rewarded.

Homosexuality is neither a moral nor a social good, and deserves no such beneifits or recognition.

Edited October 26, 2005 by Socrates

[jasJis]

Soj & hot stuff,
The major error that you guys are making is that Government is defining Civil Marriage and that we Catholics/Christians should not impose our religious beliefs on them because Marriage is a Sacrament.

The dog wags the tail, not the other way around. Marriage is a Sacrament AND a Natual State. God created marriage and then made it a sacrament. Governments have authority because that is the way God created man. To have a society and organization. Governmental Authority must reflect God. It must reflect Christian Dogma in principle on a macro level.

We can participate in Government in this Country. That's a grace we have. It is our responsibility to have Government reflect the Core Principles of Christianity. That does not mean legilslating the closure of Steaks-R-Us on Fridays, but it does mean having Government reflect the basic principle of Marriage being a Societal Institution, created by God due to the nature He created Man with. It must be between a man and a woman. As far as assigning insurance benefits and stuff like that to another person, regardless of the relationship, that's another matter. Calling it a Civil Union is too close to a marriage. Blessing a same sex marriage is as abhorant as okaying bestiality or incest.

That's all I can post for a while. My crews and I are working on hurricane recovery work here in Fla. I trust Socrates can uphold the point that Government is beholden to Christian Principles and there is no seperation of authorities when it comes to societial principles (as contrasted to details.)

[littleflower+JMJ]

missed you lots jasJis always love reading your posts

prayers for you down there in florida