Why Homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages

[yinekka]

During the Q&A on 5 July Jimmy was asked how to defend opposition to same-sex marriages from a non religious point of view. Jimmy gave his, as usual, excellent answer and recommended a booklet put out by Catholic Answers: Why Homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages. In addition to the outlets Jimmy mentioned I purchased my copy on Amazon Kindle for 99c AUD.

[nickybr38]

That's nice.

[Leigh01]

Hello everybody. Homosexual activists are challenging the validation of same sex marriage. In some places they have even achieved this ambition.

[George Stegmeir]

Originally Posted by yinekka

During the Q&A on 5 July Jimmy was asked how to defend opposition to same-sex marriages from a non religious point of view. Jimmy gave his, as usual, excellent answer and recommended a booklet put out by Catholic Answers: Why Homosexual Unions Are Not Marriages. In addition to the outlets Jimmy mentioned I purchased my copy on Amazon Kindle for 99c AUD.

You are preaching to the choir on this site about that subject.
The main reason for the surge in "homosexual marriage" in this country is that dispite the fact that the US has the largest percentage of its population as church-goers in the Western World, we are on the verge of becoming a secularist society. This is because of over 50 years of secularist public education and a mass media blitz in favor of secularization.
This has led to a systemized effort to accept homosexuality as normal behavior.....which further leads to so called "homosexual marriage".
With all sexual behavior having come out of the closet since the "sexual revolution" of the 1960's, it was only a matter of time before all sorts of abnormal sexual practices amongst hetrosexual couples became accepted.
In the US, sexual morality has become for the most part, moribund and exists for most people only when their under - aged daughter is involved! In other words, sexual morality is for someone else, not them.
The point is, that most people in the US do not believe the Catholic view that sex exists solely for procreation. In fact, they deny it. They tend to the view that the sex act exists for pleasure only-whether for ones self or for ones partner.
Thus, to them, marriage has nothing to do with religion.
What a bonanza to the divorce lawyers!

[Incomplete]

Originally Posted by NonServiam

The United States has a secular government, and its laws are not made on the basis of any particular religion.

Obviously, Catholics don't recognize homosexual marriage as valid, but it's legal in many parts of the United States because our country has a secular government with secular laws.

In a similar way, civil marriages between heterosexuals, religious marriages between Protestants or Hindus or members of other religions, and marriages between people who were once divorced are all marriages not recognized by the Catholic Church as valid, but all of them *are* recognized as legal by the government of the United States. Again, this is because the United States has a secular government with secular laws.

Homosexual marriage, in principle, is no different: Catholics don't recognize it as valid, but there's no reason that secular law cannot recognize it as valid.

But we do recognize all those other marriages as valid, with the exception of a divorced person marrying who has not received an annulment. (Then the second marriage is not seen as valid.) That's why, if a Catholic wants to marry someone who is divorced but not Catholic, that person still needs to have the marriage annulled.

[Crescentinus]

If homosexualists storm this thread, I'll be ready to counter their attacks.
And yes, homosexualists view traditional marriages as unfair at best and evil at worst.

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by NonServiam

Such aggressive rhetoric.

Evidence?

The way militant homosexualists view traditional marriage and its defenders. It shows in the debates.

[Incomplete]

Originally Posted by NonServiam

Oh, I didn't realize that.

So, you're saying that Catholics would see two people married in a Hindu ceremony as part of a valid marriage? I was under the impression that Catholics viewed anyone not married in the Catholic Church as " not married in the eyes of God" (and that this would be *especially* true of people married in pagan religions). My impression was apparently mistaken, according to you.

So, how far does this go? Do Catholics recognize civil marriages between heterosexuals as valid? Would two people married in Satanic ceremony be considered part of a valid marriage by Catholics (remember, the Church of Satan is recognized legally as a religion, and it can and does perform marriages)?

Many people are confused about these issues. There is a difference between a valid marriage and a sacramental marriage, which is part of the confusion. It might interest you to know that the Church considers marriages to be sacramental when both parties have been baptized, meaning Protestant marriages can be considered sacramental.

I can understand you not just trusting me with this answer (which I presume when you say "according to you") when you have been taught to the contrary. I do not have time to prove my case by quoting Church documents, so I will just quote this from Catholic Answers staff to show you it is not just an erroneous opinion on my part. If you do some googling you will find many sites confirming it.

In general, marriages between non-Catholics, of whatever religion, are considered valid, but the situation is not as simple as it sounds because there are two kinds of marriage: natural (ordinary) marriage and supernatural (sacramental) marriage. Supernatural marriages exist only between baptized people, so marriages between two Jews or two Muslims are only natural marriages. Assuming no impediments, marriages between Jews or Muslims would be valid natural marriages. Marriages between two Protestants or two Eastern Orthodox also would be valid, presuming no impediments, but these would be supernatural (sacramental) marriages and thus indissoluble.

Here's the link: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestio...t-if-a-catholi

I'll answer the rest of your question when I can...hopefully later tonight, but I can't guarantee that. It deserves as complete an answer as I can give you. Or maybe in the meantime someone else will give a complete answer.

As I previewed the answer I gave, I noticed it does not deal with non-Christians (sigh). I will provide evidence for that later. But indeed, Pagan marriages could be considered valid.

Edit: I'm back. I was able to find something quickly enough that I think should show you that I am not speaking just on my own. Here it is (the bolding is mine):

The Catechism of the Council of Trent gave this definition of marriage: It is the conjugal union between a man and a woman, both in legal status, establishing a perpetual and indissoluble communion of lives.

St. Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent explain that the goals of the marriage are two: the primary goal is the procreation and education of the offspring; the secondary goal is the mutual support of the spouses, either psychologically or as a remedy for concupiscence (Summa theologiae, Supplementum, Q. 67, a. 1, ad 4th; Catechism of Trent, Part II, VII, §§ 13-14).

The definition of marriage and its goals apply to both: the marriage between two non-baptized persons and the marriage between two baptized persons.

The link is here: http://www.traditioninaction.org/rel...Marriage1.html

[Incomplete]

Originally Posted by NonServiam

Right, this was my point. Catholics don't see second marriages as valid -- and you're entitled to hold that opinion -- but second marriages are legally allowed because United States laws are secular, not religious.

I'm suggesting that exactly the same thing applies to homosexual marriage. Catholics don't see homosexual marriages as valid -- and you're entitled to hold that opinion -- but homosexual marriages are legally allowed (in many states, and the number is growing) because United States laws are secular, not religious.

Before I respond to this, I should clarify (because I was making some assumptions):

Yes, the government can and will pass whatever laws it wants. That doesn't mean they are just laws, or that we shouldn't fight them, nor does it mean we can obey them. For example,you are aware of the situation with what is termed the "Contraception mandate". If it comes to obeying God or obeying the government, we have no choice. We obey God.

So, is your underlying question about why we are fighting the homosexual marriage laws and not laws allowing divorce and remarriage? That's the question I was assuming, but in re-reading, I'm not sure I understood correctly.

[vsedriver]

Originally Posted by NonServiam

Obviously, Catholics don't recognize homosexual marriage as valid, but it's legal in many parts of the United States because our country has a secular government with secular laws.

The secular government has been known to pass stupid laws in the past. These laws eventually get thrown out.

but all of them *are* recognized as legal by the government of the United States. Again, this is because the United States has a secular government with secular laws.

The federal government recognized these as legal marriage because the participants fit the requirements for marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who have the potential to be a mommy and a daddy.

Religion, race, and sexual orientation are not part of the requirements for marriage.

Homosexual marriage, in principle, is no different: Catholics don't recognize it as valid, but there's no reason that secular law cannot recognize it as valid.

Well if secular law determines that having the potential to be a mommy and a daddy isn't necessary to have a marriage than yes, the government can allow anyone to marry. This means that there is no sound reason to prevent plural marriage or incestuous marriages.

So when my state government forces gay marriage on the people I will trot right up to the court house for my marriage license and I will marry my 80 year old mother. I'll inherit all her money and property and my siblings will get none of it! :-)

[Incomplete]

Originally Posted by NonServiam

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

Sure. My point, though, was just that the laws that the secular government passes are entirely secular and that there's no reason that these laws need to be beholden to any particular religion.

I'm not trying to argue that Catholics shouldn't "fight" these laws if they want to -- you guys can do whatever you like. Knock yourselves out, for all I care. But I am arguing that from the perspective of the secular government, there's no reason that the law has to conform to the beliefs of your particular religion on this one issue. And I guess, in a roundabout way, I'm suggesting that it would be most sensible for US Catholics to accept the simple fact that you live in a secular country and that not all of the laws are going to perfectly line up with beliefs you hold for purely dogmatic/doctrinal reasons (i.e. in this case, the bald assertion that only unions between men and women are "correct").

When you live in a secular country and you are one among many different religions and/or philosophical positions, I think it's entirely unreasonable to expect a secular government to cater to the idiosyncratic beliefs of your particular group.

No, I wasn't posing that as a question (that is, I'm not looking for someone to answer that). I was pointing out what I consider a bizarre double-standard.

I don't think anybody will disagree that the government will make whatever laws it makes, whether just or not. And we don't expect the government will cater to everything we believe in. Having said that, people fight laws that they see as wrong all the time, whether it's for secular or religious reasons. Nobody (that I'm aware of) accuses them of thinking that the government should cater to their individual personal beliefs; I'm not sure why you are making that accusation for Catholics.

The Church thinks that salvation is more important than our life here on earth. With that in mind, it sees an obligation to fight against anything it views as sinful behavior, not just for Catholics, but for everyone. We may lose this fight....we have been losing it, and I suspect we will continue to... but the Church feels a moral obligation to at least fight it. Because gay marriage is not just about marriage; the result is to normalize homosexual behavior.

We would be very hypocritical to say that homosexual behavior is sinful, and that we care about the souls of others, but we don't care if people engage in what we consider sinful behavior.

The "bizarre double standard"...are you talking about the misconception you had earlier about what we consider valid marriages, or is there something I'm missing?

[jpink1019]

Originally Posted by NonServiam

Leaving aside your odd rhetoric ("mommy and daddy"? seriously, this is what passes for rational discourse to you?), you are aware that the federal government allows sterile people to get married, right? The "potential to be a mommy and a daddy," as you so eloquently put it, has absolutely nothing to do with being able to be legally married in the eyes of the government.

Similarly, couples who openly state that it is their intention never to have children -- along with couples who have had medical procedures to render them sterile (because they don't want children) -- are allowed to get married under the secular law of the United States.

I don't think you've really thought through what you're saying.

Which it has already determined, as I've demonstrated.

Then you're in agreement with me that we should allow gay marriage, by your own logic. Well done.

This "slippery slope" argument baffles me: the people who make laws can -- and do, all the time -- draw arbitrary limits as to what is allowable.

For example, people in the United States are allowed to purchase handguns. Does that mean that "there is no sound reason to prevent people from buying flamethrowers and tanks"?

In other words, just because the law allows X, doesn't mean that the law can't draw an arbitrary line and say "we won't allow Y, Z, or Q." We do it all the time.

That's quite a fantasy world you've constructed for yourself, there. Good luck with it.

I really hope that if there is going to be another debate about this topic here that it will be worth my read. I do not find it particularly helpful to read banter. I hope that everyone will remain polite because inevitably people will not agree while talking on this topic. It is a hot topic.
As for myself personally i do not agree with homosexuality, particularly because scripture condemns homosexual actions (I am hoping that this specifically is not up for debate) and if i called myself a christian it would only be logical that I accept christian teaching. Otherwise I am not a christian but I am making up my own rules.

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by Crescentinus

The way militant homosexualists view traditional marriage and its defenders. It shows in the debates.

I somehow doubt a homosexual couple would be fighting for the right to have a traditional marriage, if they view it as evil.

Sarah x

[Crescentinus]

Originally Posted by atheistgirl

I somehow doubt a homosexual couple would be fighting for the right to have a traditional marriage, if they view it as evil.

Sarah x

I wasn't referring to a homosexual couple, but to homosexualists. And yes, there are plenty of heterosexuals who are homosexualists.

[mangy dog]

Originally Posted by NonServiam

Such aggressive rhetoric.

Evidence?

It's interesting that you should use the words of Lucifer as your forum name....be that as it may.

Active homosexuality is unnatural and immoral and inherently evil. The action was evil enough that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for it and other vile perversions.

No need to be aggressive or litigious- it is what it is.