franciscanheart Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 [quote name='Niccolò' post='1907044' date='Jul 1 2009, 09:43 AM']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] Mmm... the state and Church are different entities. To argue that the state necessarily recognize natural law brings in a whole other level of argument which would be that our laws should be governed by our faith. In the US, there is such a thing as separation of Church and state. [quote]Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.[/quote] [quote name='Niccolò' post='1907044' date='Jul 1 2009, 09:43 AM']The truth is that homosexuals currently have all the rights that everyone else has.[/quote] Homosexual couples are denied rights which heterosexual couples are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niccolò Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 [quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907052' date='Jul 1 2009, 10:02 AM']Mmm... the state and Church are different entities. To argue that the state necessarily recognize natural law brings in a whole other level of argument which would be that our laws should be governed by our faith. In the US, there is such a thing as separation of Church and state.[/quote] There is a separation of Church and state not only in the US, but in all of Christendom. The Church and state have always been separate entities. The Natural Law is binding on all mankind, even those who are not religious or are not Catholic. [quote]Homosexual couples are denied rights which heterosexual couples are not.[/quote] What rights might those be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) [quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907052' date='Jul 1 2009, 09:02 AM']Mmm... the state and Church are different entities. To argue that the state necessarily recognize natural law brings in a whole other level of argument which would be that our laws should be governed by our faith. In the US, there is such a thing as separation of Church and state.[/quote] It is an abuse of power for the state to enact laws that legitimize acts of sexual perversion and degeneracy, and the separation of Church and state cannot be invoked to promote the false notion that the state is above the natural moral law. The Vatican issued a document on this very topic some years ago, and it is well worth reading (cf., [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"][u]Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Homosexual Unions[/u][/url]). [quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907052' date='Jul 1 2009, 09:02 AM']Homosexual couples are denied rights which heterosexual couples are not.[/quote] No one has a right to perform immoral acts, nor do civil authorities have the power to promote – through legislation – acts that are contrary to the moral dignity of the human person. Edited July 1, 2009 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) Laura, we both know that marriage between two people of the same gender is against the natural law, so it does not matter whether you are Catholic, another Christian denomination, Buddhist, Jewish, etc. [quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907052' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:02 AM']Homosexual couples are denied rights which heterosexual couples are not.[/quote] First, you are referring to heterosexual [i]married[/i] couples, correct? If you are referring to such things as legal rights such as hospital visitation or power-of-attorney, then [i]any[/i] unmarried person of legal age and sound mind can simply go to an attorney and have a legal document drawn up giving that person that right. There's nothing stopping me from giving a girl I'm dating, or a neighbor, or a trusted parishoner friend that right. It's probably cheaper than renting a hall and a band anyway. Edited July 1, 2009 by Norseman82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OraProMe Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1907084' date='Jul 1 2009, 10:33 AM']No one has a right to perform immoral acts, nor do civil authorities have the power to promote – through legislation – acts that are contrary to the moral dignity of the human person.[/quote] Don't you think seperation of Church and state and the right of the individual to religious freedom without temporal interference means that what's considered an "immoral act" shouldn't be decided by one particular code of religious ethics? Edited July 1, 2009 by OraProMe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 [quote name='Niccolò' post='1907063' date='Jul 1 2009, 10:19 AM']There is a separation of Church and state not only in the US, but in all of Christendom. The Church and state have always been separate entities. The Natural Law is binding on all mankind, even those who are not religious or are not Catholic.[/quote] Your view of natural law being binding on all mankind is a part of your faith, is it not? [quote name='Niccolò' post='1907063' date='Jul 1 2009, 10:19 AM']What rights might those be?[/quote] Homosexual couples cannot be married legally. Because they cannot be married legally, they do not know the benefit of tax breaks for their partnership. I'm sure there are other things. Really, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1907084' date='Jul 1 2009, 10:33 AM']It is an abuse of power for the state to enact laws that legitimize acts of sexual perversion and degeneracy, and the separation of Church and state cannot be invoked to promote the false notion that the state is above the natural moral law. The Vatican issued a document on this very topic some years ago, and it is well worth reading (cf., [url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"][u]Considerations Regarding Proposaals to Give Legal Recognition to Homoexual Unions[/u][/url]). No one has a right to perform immoral acts, nor do civil authorities have the power to promote – through legislation – acts that are contrary to the moral dignity of the human person.[/quote] Now we're getting somewhere! If there is a seperation of Church and state in this country, who gets to decide the nature of sexual perversion? If there is a significant number of people in the country who believe (and whose faith does not contradict) homosexual relations to be natural and healthy, who gets to decide that their rights in regards to a civil union be denied? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 [quote name='Norseman82' post='1907105' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:04 AM']Laura, we both know that marriage between two people of the same gender is against the natural law, so it does not matter whether you are Catholic, another Christian denomination, Buddhist, Jewish, etc.[/quote] Playing devil's advocate here. [quote name='Norseman82' post='1907105' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:04 AM']First, you are referring to heterosexual [i]married[/i] couples, correct? If you are referring to such things as legal rights such as hospital visitation or power-of-attorney, then [i]any[/i] unmarried person of legal age and sound mind can simply go to an attorney and have a legal document drawn up giving that person that right. There's nothing stopping me from giving a girl I'm dating, or a neighbor, or a trusted parishoner friend that right. It's probably cheaper than renting a hall and a band anyway.[/quote] I guess you're right about that. But I think the issue is more about suppressing a person. If someone is in love with someone of the same sex, it is not legal for that person to officially declare his or her love for his or her partner and then to receive the legal benefits that come along with it. [quote name='OraProMe' post='1907106' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:04 AM']Don't you think seperation of Church and state and the right of the individual to religious freedom without temporal interference means that what's considered an "immoral act" shouldn't be decided by one particular code of religious ethics?[/quote] That's what I'm saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OraProMe Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 [quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907113' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:11 AM']If there is a seperation of Church and state in this country, who gets to decide the nature of sexual perversion? If there is a significant number of people in the country who believe (and whose faith does not contradict) homosexual relations to be natural and healthy, who gets to decide that their rights in regards to a civil union be denied?[/quote] Exactly what I was trying to say in my above post but far more eloquent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 O.K., marriage is a long-term relationship of two members of the opposite sex. Following the 4000+ years of Judeo-Christian history, the male-female relationship is the only way the plumbing works. If the gay community wishes to state that their union is equal to the same rights and benefits as the straight community, then, let two women impregnate each other without any outside intervention ( IVF, etc ). From my perspective, the entire gay "marriage" thing is a slippery slope. The next step, after the gay "marriage" battle, is the pursuit of the legal status of 4 men 9 girls under the age of 13, 7 women, 4 sheep, a horse and 21 monkeys. What the heck, "unconventional" marriage will have become the law, so what's the big deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 [quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907123' date='Jul 1 2009, 12:23 PM']If someone is in love with someone of the same sex, it is not legal for that person to officially declare his or her love for his or her partner and then to receive the legal benefits that come along with it.[/quote] Well, if we are playing devil's advocate, can I invite you to my wedding to my cocker spaniel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I may not attend the "wedding", but I could go to the reception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 (edited) [quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907113' date='Jul 1 2009, 10:11 AM']If there is a seperation of Church and state in this country, who gets to decide the nature of sexual perversion? If there is a significant number of people in the country who believe (and whose faith does not contradict) homosexual relations to be natural and healthy, who gets to decide that their rights in regards to a civil union be denied?[/quote] You seem to be laboring under the false idea that the natural law is determined by majority opinion. Right reason (which is not to be confused with "rationalization" of any behavior as moral by a majority vote) determines the true nature of moral acts by reference to the end ([i]telos[/i]) of the act in question. Homosexual acts are intrinsically deprived of the proper finality that is inherent to the generative organs of the human person (male and female). That said, the state is duty bound to defend the dignity of the family, which by its very nature consists of a husband / father and a wife / mother. Sexual activity outside of the marital union of a man and a woman is contrary to the proper end of the generative organs, which are primarily intended for the procreation of children and secondarily for the expression of the love that exists between the spouses. Sexual acts outside of the marriage covenant can never be given legal status by the state, because its (i.e., the state's) powers derive from and are dependent upon God, who created man – male and female – in order to mirror His own internal life of fruitfulness through the sacrificial gift of self in the marital embrace. In the final analysis, created reason requires the gift of faith, i.e., if it is to know with certainty the true purpose of man's existence, but even without faith it is possible to know that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, because they frustrate – by definition – the generative ability inherent to the sexual organs. Edited July 1, 2009 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 [quote name='Dan' post='1907128' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:29 AM']O.K., marriage is a long-term relationship of two members of the opposite sex. Following the 4000+ years of Judeo-Christian history, the male-female relationship is the only way the plumbing works.[/quote] Not everyone in this country is Jewish or Christian. There are many other articles of faith which are alive and well in this country. The question is really the separation of Church and state and the reasoning the Church gives for not being okay with civil unions. [quote name='Norseman82' post='1907130' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:29 AM']Well, if we are playing devil's advocate, can I invite you to my wedding to my cocker spaniel?[/quote] You can invite me. I don't think I'll go. All kidding aside, did you just relate a human being to a cocker spaniel? I think you did. Haha. Two human beings falling in love and wanting to live a life together (not to mention being capable of committing their lives to each other in a legal and binding contract) is very different than a human being inflicting their will on another creature, especially one that cannot consent to the treatment. And I'll stress treatment in that case since only one living creature in that equation can make a conscious decision to be married... [quote name='Dan' post='1907138' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:34 AM']I may not attend the "wedding", but I could go to the reception.[/quote] That's what I was thinking!! [quote name='Apotheoun' post='1907140' date='Jul 1 2009, 11:34 AM']You seem to be laboring under the false idea that the natural law is determined by majority opinion. Right reason (which is not to be confused with "rationalization" of any behavior as moral by a majority vote) determines the true nature of moral acts by reference to the end ([i]telos[/i]) of the act in question. Homosexual acts are intrinsically deprived of the proper finality that is inherent to the generative organs of the human person (male and female). That said, the state is duty bound to defend the dignity of the family, which by its very nature consists of a husband / father and a wife / mother. Sexual activity outside of the marital union of a man and a woman is contrary to the proper end of the generative organs, which are primarily intended for the procreation of children and secondarily for the expression of the love that exists between the spouses. Sexual acts outside of the marriage covenant can never be given legal status by the state, because its (i.e., the state's) powers derive from and are dependent upon God, who created man – male and female – in order to mirror His own internal life of fruitfulness through the sacrificial gift of self in the marital embrace. In the final analysis, created reason requires the gift of faith, i.e., if it is to know with certainty the true purpose of man's existence, but even without faith it is possible to know that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, because they frustrate – by definition – the generative ability inherent to the sexual organs.[/quote] I do not labor under the false idea that the natural law is determined by majority opinion. Trust me, I do not. However, in this country it is law that others may disagree. Their truth may be the same: that natural law is not determined by majority opinion. However, their truth may differ from ours in that their natural law (regardless of what it may be called) does not view homosexual relations as disordered. So according the state, it is treating some citizens with a great deal of disrespect. I'm not saying, I'm just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niccolò Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 [quote name='hugheyforlife' post='1907113' date='Jul 1 2009, 12:11 PM']Your view of natural law being binding on all mankind is a part of your faith, is it not?[/quote] That would be irrelevant. I was responding particularly to musturde's question: [quote name='musturde' post='1906482' date='Jun 30 2009, 05:37 PM']Why does the Church care if the state recognizes gay marriage?[/quote] So, natural law is why the Church cares if the state recognizes homosexual unions. [quote]Homosexual couples cannot be married legally. Because they cannot be married legally, they do not know the benefit of tax breaks for their partnership. I'm sure there are other things. Really, I'm just playing devil's advocate here.[/quote] The statement presupposes that homosexual couples have a right to legal recognition. In fact, homosexual individuals have all the rights that heterosexual individuals have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 [quote name='Niccolò' post='1907206' date='Jul 1 2009, 01:42 PM']The statement presupposes that homosexual couples have a right to legal recognition. In fact, homosexual individuals have all the rights that heterosexual individuals have.[/quote] That would be the nature of the discussion. Why can the Church not allow civil unions to take place? Why must the Church have an opinion on something which happens outside of Her? (btw - this is really getting tough on my end. I'm giving you your answer without giving you your answer. sheesh.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now