Should Homosexual Marriage Be Banned?

[StatingTheObvious]

[quote name='Sinner' date='Nov 13 2005, 12:08 PM']The ability to procreate is a prerequisite to contract a Sacramental Marriage.
[right][snapback]787157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]It's not the 'ability', but the possibility. permanent impotence would prevent, but sterility isn't.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Sinner' date='Nov 13 2005, 11:08 AM']QFNOL,
Man I am slow for a thread starter.... but what I meant was that it is your duty as a Catholic to vote... (from Cathechism):
2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote,,,

QFNOL  there are several states that had laws against sodomy that have allowed same sex marriage due to rulings by liberal judges.  This amendment to the Texas constitution is pre-emptive to prevent that in Texas. 

Marriage is about procreation.  The ability to procreate is a prerequisite to contract a Sacramental Marriage.
[right][snapback]787157[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

While I do agree that we have a responsibility to vote and that this was preemptive, I was pretty posititive it would pass and couldn't in good conscience vote it down. Likewise, I felt I really couldn't vote for it, for just like the Bill of Rights where freedom of religion is guaranteed, I don't think it is or should be necessary...and to vote for it implies that it is such...Had this come up in a couple years, I would have been much more inclined to vote for it.

It's probably a poor argument, but it actually borrows a lot from Hamilton in the Federalist Papers.

[Jaime]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 9 2005, 08:10 PM'][No intention to feed the troll...     ] But hot stuff, do you see the multi-nature of marriage?  Though civil marriage is a diminished reflection of what Christian marriage is, it should at lease be an accurate reflection and not be the exact opposite.  That's why the Catholic Church will bless and validate a civil marriage if the couple discovers the Graces of the Marriage Sacrament and come to the Church.  A civil marriage may be a sprout, but a Christian marriage brings the water and sun so the sprout may blossom to it's full potential.  :
[right][snapback]784314[/snapback][/right]


[/quote]


There is no multi nature of marriage jas. You are wrong. Does the Church recognize civil marriages? Yes she does. That does not mean in any way shape or form that she endorses civil marriage as you suggest.

Let's take a look at some Church documents about the subject shall we?



[quote]Quam religiosa


We have given frequent instruction concerning the sanctity of marriage. Jesus Christ, the author of the new covenant, translated the duty of nature into sacraments, and this duty cannot be divorced from religion and immersed in worldly affairs.
[/quote]

From Arcanum

[quote]
16. Yet, owing to the efforts of the archenemy of mankind, there are persons who, thanklessly casting away so many other blessings of redemption, despise also or utterly ignore the restoration of marriage to its original perfection. It is a reproach to some of the ancients that they showed themselves the enemies of marriage in many ways; but in our own age, much more pernicious is the sin of those who would fain pervert utterly the nature of marriage, perfect though it is, and complete in all its details and parts. The chief reason why they act in this way is because very many, imbued with the maxims of a false philosophy and corrupted in morals, judge nothing so unbearable as submission and obedience; and strive with all their might to bring about that not only individual men, but families, also -- indeed, human society itself -- may in haughty pride despise the sovereignty of God.
17. Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.
18. Hence are owing civil marriages, commonly so called; hence laws are framed which impose impediments to marriage; hence arise judicial sentences affecting the marriage contract, as to whether or not it have been rightly made. Lastly, all power of prescribing and passing judgment in this class of cases is, as we see, of set purpose denied to the Catholic Church, so that no regard is paid either to her divine power or to her prudent laws. Yet, under these, for so many centuries, have the nations lived on whom the light of civilization shone bright with the wisdom of Christ Jesus.
19. [b]Nevertheless, the naturalists,[32] as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature.[/b] Innocent III. therefore. and Honorius III, our predecessors, affirmed not falsely nor rashly that a sacrament of marriage existed ever amongst the faithful and unbelievers.[33] We call to witness the monuments of antiquity, as also the manners and customs of those people who, being the most civilized, had the greatest knowledge of law and equity. In the minds of all of them it was a fixed and foregone conclusion that, when marriage was thought of, it was thought of as conjoined with religion and holiness. Hence, among those, marriages were commonly celebrated with religious ceremonies, under the authority of pontiffs, and with the ministry of priests. So mighty, even in the souls ignorant of heavenly doctrine, was the force of nature, of the remembrance of their origin, and of the conscience of the human race. As, then, marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church, which alone in sacred matters professes the office of teaching.

[/quote]


This is exactly why I argue that marriage should be out of the hands of government and in the hands of the Church. This is exactly why I am confounded that a Catholic would argue for the ability of the government to define marriage. This is exactly why I disagree with you.

[Jaime]

[quote name='StatingTheObvious' date='Nov 11 2005, 07:05 AM']Great, so leave me starvin'.    He's too skeered to answer you anyway. Or he's got better things to do then read one of your long winded answers.  Watch Bill OReally and get a grip on 'pithy'  :
[right][snapback]785609[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


forgive my unpleasant disposition

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 13 2005, 12:29 PM']This is exactly why I argue that marriage should be out of the hands of government and in the hands of the Church.  This is exactly why I am confounded that a Catholic would argue for the ability of the government to define marriage.  This is exactly why I disagree with you.
[right][snapback]787210[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The reason I was trying to show you natural versus Sacramental Marriage is I was demonstrating the government's capacity to define marriage, within the confines of the Natural Law.

[Jaime]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 13 2005, 12:41 PM']The reason I was trying to show you natural versus Sacramental Marriage is I was demonstrating the government's capacity to define marriage, within the confines of the Natural Law.
[right][snapback]787216[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I've answered that within the quotes Q. But this is more a response to Jas

[qfnol31]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 6 2005, 03:01 PM']Sacramental marriage is a dogmatic principle.  If someone can explain to me how natural marriage supercedes dogma, I'll back off my position.
[right][snapback]780385[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It's a part of it, which is why this comes up.

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 6 2005, 09:18 PM']Sacramental marriage is an outward sign instituted by Christ to bring about grace.

natural marriage is the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as a husband or wife in a legal consensual and contractual relationship that is recognized and sanctioned by and disolvable only by law.
My stance is natural marriage is a misnomer.  The fact that the Church has declared marriage to be a sacrament overrides any other definition.
[right][snapback]780643[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think that Natural Marriage is that part of marriage defined from the Natural Law, all it lacks is the Divine Law which complements it.

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Nov 6 2005, 09:30 PM']I believe that natural marriage says it must be four things:

1)  Permanent
2)  Heterosexual
3)  Exclusive
4)  Procreative. 
[right][snapback]780672[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 7 2005, 11:13 AM']Canon Law, the Catechism, and Church Teaching DO RECOGNIZE Civil/Natural Law elements of Marriage.  Re-read the excerpts from the Catechism and Canon Law, expecially what I highlighted...
[right][snapback]781258[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Here he and I are arguing the same thing but from two different angles. It is that natural marriage is recognized by the Church. It's just lacking the eschatological sign present in Sacramental Marriage.

[quote name='jasJis' date='Nov 9 2005, 08:10 PM']But hot stuff, do you see the multi-nature of marriage?  Though civil marriage is a diminished reflection of what Christian marriage is, it should at lease be an accurate reflection and not be the exact opposite.  That's why the Catholic Church will bless and validate a civil marriage if the couple discovers the Graces of the Marriage Sacrament and come to the Church.  A civil marriage may be a sprout, but a Christian marriage brings the water and sun so the sprout may blossom to it's full potential.  :
[right][snapback]784314[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Here jasJis points out that natural marriage and Sacramental Marriage are not in conflict, but one is the fulfillment of the other.

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 13 2005, 12:29 PM']There is no multi nature of marriage jas. You are wrong.  Does the Church recognize civil marriages?  Yes she does.  That does not mean in any way shape or form that she endorses civil marriage as you suggest.
...
This is exactly why I argue that marriage should be out of the hands of government and in the hands of the Church.  This is exactly why I am confounded that a Catholic would argue for the ability of the government to define marriage.  This is exactly why I disagree with you.
[right][snapback]787210[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

The government has the right to make laws based on the Natural Law, which is what it is doing in this case. It is allowed to make definitions that coincide with Natural Law.

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 13 2005, 12:45 PM']I've answered that within the quotes Q.  But this is more a response to Jas
[right][snapback]787217[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think it's the same argument.

[Jaime]

Fine Q

Then I would say you're both wrong then. Pope Leo XIII says the same

[qfnol31]

Oh. So you're saying that there is nothing outside of Divine Law on Marriage?

[Jaime]

You've missed the point. I think you might want to reread the quotes I've posted. If you want a better understanding, research the documents and read them yourself.


Then instead of restating your argument. Refute the evidence that I've posted instead of glossing over it

[qfnol31]

hot stuff, is there anything in Natural Law about Marriage?

[qfnol31]

I read the article and think that it's actually presupposing a government that works against the Church, not with it.

The government can work with the Church by determining what cannot be allowed, such as homosexuality. Another thing is that government (at least today) cannot legislative Divine Law that's not explicitly in the Natural Law (such as much of Sacramental Marriage is), according to St. Thomas.

This is why I'm saying that the government can define Marriage insofar as it's not contrary to the Church and does not contradict anything or limit marriage. Otherwise, in my opinion, the government isn't doing a good enough job enforcing morals.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Nov 13 2005, 12:31 PM']forgive my unpleasant disposition
[right][snapback]787212[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Jaime]

Again from Leo XIII

[quote]9. Nevertheless, the naturalists,[32] as well as all who profess that they worship above all things the divinity of the State, and strive to disturb whole communities with such wicked doctrines, cannot escape the charge of delusion. Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature.[/quote]

This backs up my assertion.

[qfnol31]

That describes both aspects of it pretty well, I think. Marriage does have for it's author God. So does everything else good. The state, in not going against what the Church says, upholds this.

The issue is when the state goes against the Church (and worse, Natural Law).