Should Homosexual Marriage Be Banned?

[zealousdefender]

Hmm. I've been away for a long, long time. (Besides which, I wasn't here for that long in the first place.)

I've just read this entire thread and I'm quite surprised to find so many differing opinions between faithful Catholics on such a simple issue. I am with Socrates all the way on this one, though I see it in much more basic terms:

Part One:
Homosexuality = Sodomy; Sodomy, bad
Civil union, gay marriage, life partnership etc., = transparent euphemism for marriage
Recognition of any of the above mentioned euphemisms = the hijacking the term "marriage," which for centuries has been used to define a Sacrament.

Don't think that this debate is about the sanctity of marriage, or the Sacrament, or even about the legal benefits. It is about the privilege of using the term "marriage" to describe an abomination. By allowing this, society will eventually lose sight of the difference between these mock marriages and real marriages. This plays directly into the hands of the homosexual agenda and (dare I say it on these pages?) Satan : The destruction of the nuclear family. If you can't see the connection, I'd say that would be a subject for another debate.

Part Two:
I = Voter = 1/x of the government = [b]WE[/b] are the government
I = Catholic
I say no officially recognized homosexual unions

I wish with all my heart that this were put to a national referendum immediately. Despite the drivel the news media and Hollywood feed us, I am quite certain that the majority of this country opposes officially recognized homosexual unions and given the opportunity, would let it be known so.

Peace

[MC Just]

lol-

im voting that gay marriage is banned here in texas. The job of the christian is to rid society of evil not make it worse with liberalism and laxity.

[Didacus]

[quote name='zealousdefender' date='Nov 2 2005, 01:19 AM'][snip]
Part Two:
I = Voter = 1/x of the government = [b]WE[/b] are the government
I = Catholic
I say no officially recognized homosexual unions
[snip][right][snapback]776680[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That was one of the best posts I have seen on phatmass in the past 2 weeks! I completely agree with you zealousdefender and I wish I could have found the words to say it so well.

Please accept this free t-shirt from Didacus corp., the free T-shirt people.

And PS: nice looking portrait in the sig too! Gotta love it!

Edited November 2, 2005 by Didacus

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Nov 2 2005, 10:13 AM']And PS: nice looking portrait in the sig too!  Gotta love it!
[right][snapback]776994[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It's definitely cool, but does it have to be so friggin huge?

[Didacus]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Nov 2 2005, 11:57 PM']It's definitely cool, but does it have to be so friggin huge?
[right][snapback]777558[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Contrary to popular opinion:

[color=gray][b]BIGGER IS BETTER!!![/color][/b]

[jezic]

couldn't one say marriage is between a man and a woman from an evolutionary perspective (since society accepts evolution as true, why not use it?) because if everyone was gay, society would wipe itself out?

Also, marriage could be a term given to a biological union that is best supporting of this reproduction (since that is the ultimate goal of existance) because the individuals would be the most well formed and therefore have the best potential to reproduce.

(Though this is really nto the best way to think about people, from a worldly standpoint, why wouldn't it work this way?)

Edited November 3, 2005 by jezic

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='Didacus' date='Nov 3 2005, 07:44 AM']Contrary to popular opinion:

[color=gray][b]BIGGER IS BETTER!!![/color][/b]
[right][snapback]777700[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


No doubt we'll see Didacus lugging one of these down the street very soon. He'll be the envy of all his friends....

[img]http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c398/Cow_of_Shame/cellphone.jpg[/img]

[Sinner]

Just back from early voting today. I would say there were about 12 people voting at the same time as me..... now I know I shouldn't generalize how people might vote based on their appearance.... but.... from my slanted perspective it looked like a buncha redneck Christians to me.

NAY TO HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.
YES TO TRADITINAL FAMILY.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sinner' date='Nov 3 2005, 06:29 PM']Just back from early voting today.  I would say there were about 12 people voting at the same time as me..... now I know I shouldn't generalize how people might vote based on their appearance.... but.... from my slanted perspective it looked like a buncha redneck Christians to me.

NAY TO HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE.
YES TO TRADITINAL FAMILY.
[right][snapback]778156[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Redneck Christians!! Oh no!
Why are they allowed to vote??!!

Isn't the whole purpose of our government to protect sophisticated, "enlightened" sensitive folk from those people??!!

[Jaime]

[quote] 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?[/quote]

Yes marriages belong in religious institutions. The government can recognize them as they do now. Non believers and athiests have as much right to be married as they do participating in any other sacrament.



[quote name='jezic' date='Nov 3 2005, 12:45 PM']couldn't one say marriage is between a man and a woman from an evolutionary perspective (since society accepts evolution as true, why not use it?) because if everyone was gay, society would wipe itself out?

Also, marriage could be a term given to a biological union that is best supporting of this reproduction (since that is the ultimate goal of existance) because the individuals would be the most well formed and therefore have the best potential to reproduce.

(Though this is really nto the best way to think about people, from a worldly standpoint, why wouldn't it work this way?)
[right][snapback]777918[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[QUOTE]

The Church has already defined marriage. Its dogma. I do not want the government blaspheming the definition of marriage. Would it blaspheme it by allowing homosexuals marry? Yes. NO ONE has argued for homosexual marriage anywhere in this thread.

The overall argument for not allowing homosexuals to marry is because it weakens the institution of marriage. Well guess what kids? That happens when government gets involved at all! There has been a rise in civil marriages over the past thirty years. Not so coincidentally, there has been a rise in divorce.

If we are truly about protecting the family. If we are truly about protecting the institution of marriage, government has no role in it and needs to get out of any action that is religious at its core.

[jasJis]

hot stuff,
You still ignore my questions and statement that Government is indirect authority from God and must reflect moral principles. There is a HUGE difference between The Moral Authority and reflecting Correct Morality. The Catechis tells us the Government not only has the right, but the responsibility to preserve it's institutions. Marriage is a God created Societal Institution as well as a Sacramental institution. Government is empowered to administer and protect the Societal Institution of Marriage and the Church has the exclusive right and responsibility to administer and protect the Sacramental Elements of Marriage. Marriage is not either/or a societal or sacramental foundation, but [u]both[/u].

From the Catechism (again).
[quote][b]1897[/b] "Human society can be neither well-ordered nor prosperous unless it has some people invested with legitimate authority [i]to preserve its institutions and to devote themselves as far as is necessary to work and care for the good of all[/i]."15

By "authority" one means the quality by virtue of which persons or institutions make laws and give orders to men and expect obedience from them.

[b]1898[/b] Every human community needs an authority to govern it. The foundation of such authority lies in human nature. It is necessary for the unity of the state. Its role is to ensure as far as possible the common good of the society.

[b]1899[/b] The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."[/quote]

[Jaime]

Jas I have responded with dogma. Just because you don't agree does not mean that I have not responded.


Do the quotes you've provided mention or deal directly with marriage? No. That is your inference, not the Church's. It is your assertion that [quote]Government is empowered to administer and protect the Societal Institution of Marriage and the Church has the exclusive right and responsibility to administer and protect the Sacramental Elements of Marriage. Marriage is not either/or a societal or sacramental foundation, but both.[/quote]

And that is an interpretation of the Catechism that doesn't hold water. The Catechism in that section is talking about societal morality and crimes against humanity not sacraments. You cannot post anything that supports the premise that the Church promotes sacramental control among the secular community.

Why would we treat marriage any different than the other sacraments? Should the government define the priesthood? No.

[jasJis]

Your responses have be disingenuous to say the least. The Priesthood is NOT a societal element, it is strictly Sacramental. Marriage IS a fundamental societal element and falls under the jurisdiction of the authority God has given Government. Banning same sex marriage is not Governmental regulating the Sacramental nature of marriage.

It's a false arguement to say you have addressed the question with 'dogma'. You aren't directly addressing my points.

[Jaime]

How in the world am I being disengenous? I am talking about one sacrament and the discussion is about another. Why would we put marriage in a category unto itself? It is a sacrament plain and simple.

Does the Church direclty declare marriage to be an institution created by God? Yes

Does the Catechism directly state that the institute of marriage should be controlled by society and not by the Church? No it doesn't.

Again it is you that states that the Church has given authority to the government about the institute of marriage. The Church has not declared that and the Catechism you provided does not back your opinion..

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 6 2005, 10:36 AM']Yes marriages belong in religious institutions.  The government can recognize them as they do now.  Non believers and athiests have as much right to be married as they do participating in any other sacrament.
[[/quote]
Do mean to say they have no right to be married at all? Are you saying the government must only recognize Catholic marriages?

hot stuff, the central question still remains here. How do you think Catholics should vote on a referendum on whether the state should recognize "gay marriage"?

You've generally avoided this issue (other than making the absurd implication that voting against "gay marriage" is "unconstitutional," which I have since thoroughly refuted).