Agreeing and disagreeing with gay marriage

Nothing much wrong with that. Couples, triples, sisters, whatever. Inheritance, authority over end of life considerations, asset sharing, etc… All fine with me. Is this what we mean by Marriage? I didn’t think so - I understand marriage to be an intrinsically sexual relationship of great import to the State.

I wonder what you believe is the source of morality, a quality no animal but man is bound to?

Do you think it was an oversight that the Scriptures failed to make mention of the “good” of a man joining with a man?

Why do you mention gay people? Why is sexual orientation, or sexual content, at all relevant (even if it is only “by assumption”) in the context of “secular marriage”? Now that is discriminatory!

Are you anticipating that Civil Annulment will be introduced, where one or both of the parties to the alleged marriage put a case that they did not fulfil the conditions for a free and full consent to the marriage?

Sorry what I’m about to say isn’t exactly on topic, but if you’re referring to the Prohibition, well, if you look at it in a certain way, the reversal of that actually kind of supports the hope that things like abortion, gay marriage, divorce, etc. will be reversed. The Prohibition did NOT reflect Catholic teaching - that was legislation NOT in line with Catholic teaching, and it did not work out and was reversed. Perhaps that abortion, gay marriage, etc. - all things not in line with Catholic teaching - will “not work out” and will be reversed.

OK, I know, that’s a stretch to look at it like that. :stuck_out_tongue: I wish…

Now a little bit more relevant to the discussion: some of this discussion has basically come down to the state “legislating morality” and whether that’s a breach of the “separation of Church and state”. Well, I have come across the following article a couple times, which gives us Pope Benedict’s understanding of the separation of Church and state. Here it is:

ccgaction.org/spiritual_life/formation/JustOrderingSociety-DeusCaritasEst

The way I understand it is, basically, no, of course the state should not and cannot force the people to actually practice a certain religion, but its laws must be in accord with reason and natural law, and, as the Church’s social teaching is based on reason and natural law, it is the Church’s duty to assist the State to purge legislation of any errors in reasoning or of any deviations from the natural law. So it may seem that the Church is just telling us what to do through the State, but that isn’t the case. It’s just that the State’s laws reflect natural law and while legislation based on natural law may prohibit us from doing certain things, it can’t force us to practice a certain religion.

The ‘source of morality’ is a good area for discussion…if morality has a ‘source’ in that sense. I can’t see how morality developed other than through evolution.

Morality does not need Religion. It develops as we develop.

On a different point, there is an infinite number of things that Scriptures ‘failed’ to mention.

Civil annulments already exist. Here is the law for my state, but you can look it up for whatever state you live in: ohiobar.org/ForPublic/Resources/LawYouCanUse/Pages/LawYouCanUse-199.aspx

If that is true, is morality anything more than a feeling? If your moral feelings are different from someone else’s, how do you determine whose moral feelings are correct? And, if morality is nothing more than a feeling, is there any rational reason to follow morality when you want to do something bad that benefits you?

People have different morals. What individual people feel is ‘correct’ is based on their own moral compass.

People do ‘bad’ things every day, that is in the nature of humans.

In society, we enact laws that attempt to reflect social mores and morality, to enable a wider society to function and co-operate.

Everyone has their own ‘sense’ of morality.

America may be seen as a ‘free’ country to some and Russia maybe not. Yet Russia does not have the death penalty, but some american states do.

I find it ‘strange’ that we do not allow marriage until 16, yet we turn a bind eye to children being co-coerced into organised religion. Arguably, that should be at least 16 or 18.

As I said, everyone has their own morality.

Being against same-sex marriage is not discriminating against homosexuals because the definition of marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman. That’s what marriage is. I believe that government should not be in the business of authorizing marriages. If a man and a woman want to get married, then they should be able to get married in whatever fashion their beliefs call for. I do believe in equal rights for all citizens and I think that couples should should be able to form a civil contract to protect the rights and properties of them and their children. Therefore, there should be laws in place to allow for civil unions between two adults who wish to do so. These civil unions would not be marriages, but simply contracts which protect those involved in the contract including children, such as current civil laws pertaining to marriages do. Civil divorce would also be an avenue for dissolving the legal contract, if necessary. This way everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, would have equal rights under the law, including tax exemptions. Marriage would be a private matter, which the government has no business getting into. Furthermore, an institution that many of us consider as sacred would not be tampered with.

Incorrect. It is less incorrect to say, “between a man and one or more women”. A lot of Old Testament figures had more than one wife.

Marriage is not single a well defined construct. It is a number of different constructs all given the same name.

[list]*]Marriage (Jacob) = 1 husband, 2 wives, 2 handmaidens.
*]Marriage (Deuteronomy 21:15) = 1 husband, 2 wives.
*]Marriage (David) = 1 husband, 8 wives.
*]Marriage (Solomon) = 1 husband, 700 wives, 300 concubines.
*]Marriage (Nehemiah 13:25) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same people.
*]Marriage (Moslem) = 1 husband, up to 4 wives.
*]Marriage (Joseph Smith) = 1 husband, many wives.
*]Marriage (mainstream Mormon) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
*]Marriage (Catholic) = 1 husband not previously divorced, 1 wife not previously divorced.
*]Marriage (Protestant) = 1 husband, 1 wife.
*]Marriage (Virginia pre-1967) = 1 husband, 1 wife of the same race.
*]Marriage (Netherlands since 2001) = two adults.
*]Marriage (California June 2008 - November 2008, June 2013 on) = two adults.
*]Marriage (California November 2008 - June 2013) = 1 husband, 1 wife.[/list]
There are many different versions of marriage recognised by different religious groups and by different legal entities.

rossum

That’s what marriage is. I believe that government should not be in the business of authorizing marriages. If a man and a woman want to get married, then they should be able to get married in whatever fashion their beliefs call for. I do believe in equal rights for all citizens and I think that couples should should be able to form a civil contract to protect the rights and properties of them and their children. Therefore, there should be laws in place to allow for civil unions between two adults who wish to do so. These civil unions would not be marriages, but simply contracts which protect those involved in the contract including children, such as current civil laws pertaining to marriages do. Civil divorce would also be an avenue for dissolving the legal contract, if necessary. This way everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, would have equal rights under the law, including tax exemptions. Marriage would be a private matter, which the government has no business getting into. Furthermore, an institution that many of us consider as sacred would not be tampered with.

You are not the only one, and I do not think that your personal struggle with this issue would condemn you to Hell. In our secular society, there are a lot of things that are ‘legal’ that go against our beliefs. Trying to reconcile the two is hard. Does that mean that we can separate our civil actions from our spiritual actions? Can you fight for the right of people to write anti-Catholic things because of freedom of speech? Can you fight for Same Sex Marriage because of Equal Protection?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.