Obama Champions Gay Rights

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1906629' date='Jun 30 2009, 06:35 PM']Not everyone [i]has[/i] or [i]would[/i] marry in the Church, regardless of ability. What I meant by that is that there are a lot of heterosexual marriages performed [i]legally[/i] every year in this country (again, contracts drawn between one male and one female which is legal and binding in the eyes of the law) that do not take place in a church, much less "THE" Church.


The Church does not recognize a civil marriage as a marriage anyway, if I be correctly informed. The Church, as best I know, does not consider a marriage a marriage until it has been blessed or unless it was performed by a member of the clergy and necessarily included certain words or phrases or what have you.[/quote]

Two atheists who have never been Catholic can validly marry before a justice of the peace. Two Jews who have never been Catholic can validly marry in a Jewish service. Two Hindus who have never been Catholic can validly marry at a Hindu temple. Two Protestants who have never been Catholic can validly marry before their minister.

Only those who have been baptized or received into the Catholic Church must marry in a Catholic service for validity. Even then, there are some exceptions.

[Socrates]

[quote name='musturde' post='1906482' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:37 PM']shocking.
I have a question...
Why does the Church care if the state recognizes gay marriage?
Technically, it would be nothing more than a contract between two people unless it's done through the Church... right?
And even if legal marriage is not granted to gays, it's not going to stop them from sexual activity. So what is the point of hindering gay marriage? Is the legal seal of marriage really that important if the gays living together are basically already married without the tax benefits?
Are we against the state recognizing a contract between these two people or are we against the tax exemption? Because what the Church recognizes as sinful acts are not going to stop just because the two individuals cannot marry.[/quote]
If you actually want to know why the Church is against "gay marriage" and "gay civil unions," I suggest you read the words of the Church herself.
Here's the 2003 CDF Document written by Cardinal Ratzinger (now His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI)
[url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"]CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/url]

I've linked to this document repeatedly in past debates on this topic, yet it seems to be for the most part ignored.

I strongly recommend reading the entire thing through, but here are a few highlights:
[quote]From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) [b]Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.[/b]

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.[/quote]
[quote]From the social order

8. [b]Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.[/b][/quote]
[quote]From the legal order

9. [b]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.[/b][/quote]

[quote][b]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.[/b][/quote]

As for the Obamation's endorsement of this perversion, it should come as no shock. During the campaign, Obama promised to use the "Bully Pulpit" to support homosexual "rights."

Any Catholics deluded into thinking Obama would be any sort of friend of Christian morality have only themselves to blame.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Socrates

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1906644' date='Jun 30 2009, 06:51 PM']Two atheists who have never been Catholic can validly marry before a justice of the peace. Two Jews who have never been Catholic can validly marry in a Jewish service. Two Hindus who have never been Catholic can validly marry at a Hindu temple. Two Protestants who have never been Catholic can validly marry before their minister.

Only those who have been baptized or received into the Catholic Church must marry in a Catholic service for validity. Even then, there are some exceptions.[/quote]
you're missing my point, smores.


you continued to use the church's stance of a marriage as being solely a divine institution. in the same response, as is the case in your response quoted above, you mention civil unions.

what i read from your posts was that civil unions (which did not take place in a church) are not actually marriages in the perfect view of the Church. as a divine institution, the marriage would not be "valid" in the Church's eyes if it were simply a civil union. that means that those atheists you mention above would "not be married" because they had been married by a justice of the peace and marriage is a divine institution.

in your example, it matters not that it is a man and a woman coming together in front of the justice, but rather it matters that they were before simply a justice. because, according to your reasoning, they did not have their marriage performed in a church, they are not actually to be married. marriage, as you say, is a divine institution, not simply a civil union, a contract between two people considered legal and binding in the eyes of the law.

your responses still do not answer the question.

if two atheists, man and woman, be married by a justice of the peace, would the Church accept that as a marriage? if you say yes, then your previously stated reasons would be null and void as you would have just contradicted yourself. if you say no, then you claim that regardless of gender, the Church does not recognize civil institutions as marriages. if you respond the later, then your argument for preventing civil unions between two persons of the same sex would carry little weight.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1906783' date='Jun 30 2009, 09:53 PM']if two atheists, man and woman, be married by a justice of the peace, would the Church accept that as a marriage? if you say yes, then your previously stated reasons would be null and void as you would have just contradicted yourself. if you say no, then you claim that regardless of gender, the Church does not recognize civil institutions as marriages. if you respond the later, then your argument for preventing civil unions between two persons of the same sex would carry little weight.[/quote]

The Church regards two atheists married before a justice of the peace as validly married. If one of the two converted to Catholicism, they would not have to be remarried in a Catholic ceremony.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Resurrexi

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1906805' date='Jun 30 2009, 10:03 PM']The Church regards two atheists married before a justice of the peace as validly married. If one of the two converted to Catholicism, they would not have to be remarried in a Catholic ceremony.[/quote]
Then your whole thing about marriage being a divine institution doesn't really hold much weight. Musturde's question was about civil unions.

If two atheist women wanted to be married in front of a justice of the peace, why would the Church disapprove? Why can the Church not accept that? That, I again will say I believe, was Musturde's question. If the Church approves of a man and a woman, both atheist, being married civilly (nothing at all to do with the Church), why will she not approve of two women?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1906814' date='Jun 30 2009, 10:07 PM']Then your whole thing about marriage being a divine institution doesn't really hold much weight. Musturde's question was about civil unions.

If two atheist women wanted to be married in front of a justice of the peace, why would the Church disapprove? Why can the Church not accept that? That, I again will say I believe, was Musturde's question. If the Church approves of a man and a woman, both atheist, being married civilly (nothing at all to do with the Church), why will she not approve of two women?[/quote]

The Church would disapprove of two women attempting marriage before a justice of the peace because such a marriage could never be valid.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1906821' date='Jun 30 2009, 10:11 PM']The Church would disapprove of two women attempting marriage before a justice of the peace because such a marriage could never be valid.[/quote]
finally.


why?

[Resurrexi]

A "marriage" between two persons of the same sex would be contrary to the definition of marriage set forth by the Church:

"Matrimonium est viri et mulieris maritalis coniunctio inter legitimas personas, individuam vitae consuetudinem retinens. " ([i]Roman Catechism[/i] II, 8, III)

"Marriage is the conjugal union of man and woman, contracted between two qualified persons, which obliges them to live together throughout life."

[franciscanheart]

so basically the Church can't approve of civil unions between two persons of the same sex on the mere chance that one of them might want to convert one day?

(btw, i know the answer. i'm just seeing where you're going with your logic.)

[Resurrexi]

The Church cannot approve of a kind of marriage that cannot exist.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Resurrexi

[OraProMe]

yayyyyyyyy
I smiled so much when I read this.

[Resurrexi]

Homosexuals have all the same rights that heterosexuals do.

Homosexuals cannot civilly "marry" persons of the same sex (in most places), but neither can heterosexuals.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Resurrexi

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1906870' date='Jun 30 2009, 10:33 PM']The Church cannot approve of a kind of marriage that cannot exist.[/quote]
if the potential did not exist, why would the Church have a position?

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1906985' date='Jul 1 2009, 02:08 AM']Homosexuals have all the same rights that heterosexuals do.

Homosexuals cannot civilly "marry" persons of the same sex (in most places), but neither can heterosexuals.[/quote]
way to be an insensitive chump.

[Niccolò]

[quote name='musturde' post='1906482' date='Jun 30 2009, 04:37 PM']shocking.
I have a question...
Why does the Church care if the state recognizes gay marriage?
Technically, it would be nothing more than a contract between two people unless it's done through the Church... right?
And even if legal marriage is not granted to gays, it's not going to stop them from sexual activity. So what is the point of hindering gay marriage? Is the legal seal of marriage really that important if the gays living together are basically already married without the tax benefits?
Are we against the state recognizing a contract between these two people or are we against the tax exemption? Because what the Church recognizes as sinful acts are not going to stop just because the two individuals cannot marry.[/quote]

I see your point. The problem is that there's a big difference between the state merely tolerating homosexual activity and actually endorsing it. Recognizing homosexual unions would amount to the state saying that an activity which goes against the Natural Law is acceptable. cf. Socrates' post, above.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907038' date='Jul 1 2009, 09:30 AM']way to be an insensitive chump. [/quote]

The truth is that homosexuals currently have all the rights that everyone else has.

[heavenseeker]

he did what?!?
wait this is Obama we are talking about of course he would do something like this!