Gay Marriage - What's the big deal?


#1

Now I know (and agree) that a true marriage is between a man and a woman, under God, with the intent to procreate. (Note what I put in bold, it lends to the point I am trying to make.)

In the eyes of a Christian, then, a marriage outside of the Church and under the state is not a true marriage. It may classify as a marriage under American law, but not under the Law of God.

With that said, why do Christians make such a big deal about gay marriage? If anything, I would have thought that the attitude would be that “You can have a civil union under the state and call it a ‘marriage’ if you want, but the union is not even under God in the first place so we will not recognize it as such.”

Hypothetically speaking, if two gay men or lesbian women wish to be “married,” love each other, and yet, not commit any homosexual acts, what is the moral problem? 1) It is not really a marriage but rather mistaken nomenclature, 2) No homosexual acts are committed and 3) Two people are personally committed to love and support each other. Surely love is not a sin?


#2

It’s no bother to me. I support their right to do as they please. Equal rights for all…good screen name, by the way.


#3

That is not always so.

With that said, why do Christians make such a big deal about gay marriage? If anything, I would have thought that the attitude would be that “You can have a civil union under the state and call it a ‘marriage’ if you want, but the union is not even under God in the first place so we will not recognize it as such.”

Marriage is a natural institution that predates the Church. It is not simply something conjured up by the state.

Hypothetically speaking, if two gay men or lesbian women wish to be “married,” love each other, and yet, not commit any homosexual acts, what is the moral problem? 1) It is not really a marriage but rather mistaken nomenclature, 2) No homosexual acts are committed and 3) Two people are personally committed to love and support each other.

Marriage is not any old relationship. Why is there a need for some to force the state to call what they want a marriage? There must be a reason?

Surely love is not a sin?

As long as love is correctly defined.


#4

Your premise is flawed, and your definition faulty. The Church absolutely recognizes the validity of non-Catholic and non-Christian marriages. They are, as you call them, “true marriages”.


#5

But they are not sacramental marriages.


#6

If my original premise was flawed, I confess my ignorance. I didn’t realize that the Church recognizes marriages outside of itself.

And I do realize that the institution of marriage is older than old and not something simply “conjured up” by the state…I just personally don’t see the harm as long as they’re not being married by a priest in a church.


#7

That is inaccurate. A marriage between two baptized non-Catholics is valid and sacramental.

A marriage between a baptized and non-baptized person, or two unbaptized persons, is valid and a good and natural marriage.


#8

My only problem with the equal rights/access/due process argument is that it appears that all people are currently treated equally under the law
To get a marriage license the people involved must (1) be above a certain age (2) be willing (3) be not already married, (4) be able of giving consent, and (5) be of opposite sex.

Those rules kind of apply to everyone so I’m not sure why anyone would make an equal rights argument.

There are probably other principles of law that could be invoked but that one never made sense to me.
:confused:


#9

I get this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The term “sacrament”, applied by the pope to all marriage, even those of infidels, is to be taken in its widest sense, and signifies nothing but a certain holiness inherent in marriage. Even among the Israelites marriage never had the importance of an Old Testament sacrament in the strict sense, since even such a sacrament produced a certain holiness (not indeed the interior holiness which is effected by the New Testament sacraments, but only an external legal purity), and even this was not connected with the marriage contract among the Jews. The sanctity of marriage in general is of another kind.

[quote=steveandersen]To get a marriage license the people involved must (1) be above a certain age (2) be willing (3) be not already married, (4) be able of giving consent, and (5) be of opposite sex.

Those rules kind of apply to everyone so I’m not sure why anyone would make an equal rights argument.
[/quote]

Strike #5 and it’ll still be equal. Heterosexuals don’t want to marry people of the same sex, so #5 is no restriction for them; homosexuals may want to do so, and it becomes a restriction not faced by others.


#10

The problem as I see it (and forgive me and correct me if I am wrong) is this.

Where do they want to get married??? Most of them want to be married in church. If it becomes legal for two people of the same sex to be married ( as I believe in one or two states it has) what then happens??? A church does not want to marry them due to wholly sound scripture and because of seperation of church and state lawfully they have a right to be married no matter what we say then a lawsuit is filed and it will be. and if the present hate crimes agenda by gay and lesbian rights goes into effect we then open ourselves to having to allow it or face breaking the law with the alleged hate crime.

Not only that if we continue to preach or in any way stand for what we believe in church we would be in trouble for a hate crime. Then what about our bible do we have to get rid of that too??? After all it does say it is an abomination?

Marraige was instituted long long ago to bind a man and a woman togather under God for God. It is our institution and ours to protect. We give that up and we open the door for satan to come in. Seperation of church and State is already here can you not see where this could lead?? Where would we go to protect ourselves?? The law wouldn’t under it they would be right our religion our beliefs would be looked on as hate crime. I have been told this could never happen. But then again this was once a nation under God and in the beginning our laws reflected that is it something we want to allow or risk??


#11

Great idea, but that’s still restrictive to people who want to marry other people. Why can’t people marry their pets or their favorite kitchen appliances? Why don’t we also strike condition #3, must not already be married, from the list. That way we won’t restrict people who are already married from this unfair restriction…

I hope you see the absurdity in this reasoning. To get back to the OP, the main reason why Catholics and other Christians have such a big problem with states legislating gay marriage is because we believe marriage was instituted by God; individuals and governments don’t have the right to change its nature. The family, not the individual or the town or the state, is the basic building block of society and the family is under assault today. That’s why it’s an important issue.


#12

Remeber the judge who posted the ten commandmants in his office??? and here I thought we had the freedom of religion and freedom of speach and the right to say in words what we feel and think. it starts small after all satan has to find the crack in our armore… and then before we know it we are more and more confined untill finnaly just the act of our religion or standing for what we know to be truth is illigal.


#13

I don’t follow you. Are you denying that marriage between two baptized non-Catholic is a Sacrament?

The Catholic Encyclopedia quote you posted does not support such a position. The CE i snot an authoritative document. Canon Law is.

Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.

§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.


#14

Most active homosexuals, oddly enough, do not belong to religions which profess that homosexuality is immoral, disordered, or outright evil. Why would they want to be married in a church that did profess that?

[quote=brianwalden]Great idea, but that’s still restrictive to people who want to marry other people. Why can’t people marry their pets or their favorite kitchen appliances? Why don’t we also strike condition #3, must not already be married, from the list. That way we won’t restrict people who are already married from this unfair restriction…
[/quote]

Whee, and down the slippery slope we go! Pets and inanimate objects are incapable of consent, and consent must be a prerequisite to marriage – it’s what differentiates it from long-term rape. As to #3, that’s what divorce is for. Thanks for playing!

[quote=1ke]I don’t follow you. Are you denying that marriage between two baptized non-Catholic is a Sacrament?
[/quote]

Yes, basically. And while I thank you for providing the Canon Law quotes, isn’t the Church overstepping its authority a little bit in laying claim to those who are expressly not members? And sure, all may be joined to the Christ through baptism and all that, but that does not make them beholden to the pope.

There is reason to doubt the validity of such marriages. The Catechism notes that mixed marriages between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic are subject to the approval of the bishop before liceity is granted. The Code of Canon Law gets even more specific:

[quote=CCL]Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;
[/quote]

If two baptized non-Catholics marry each other, how likely is it they’ll check with the bishop first? If they do not do so, how can their marriage be considered a valid sacrament?


#15

Well, I have demonstrated that this is not true.

No, not at all. All baptized are incorporated into the Church by virtue of their baptism and are therefore subject to her in some way, even if not recognized by the person in question.

In your opinion.

No there is not.

We are not talking about a Catholic. We are talking about those who are not Catholic. That was the context of the OP’s statement regarding why the church should care about marriages when it doesn’t recognize marriages of non-Catholics as “true marriages”.

My posts have been solely to refute that idea. You have now brought up a different case-- that of Catholics. Of course Catholics are subject to the laws of the Church.

You misunderstand. That canon ONLY applies to a CATHOLIC seeking to marry a non-Catholic.

“Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.”

It does not apply to two non-Cathlics seeking to marry each other. There is no permission from a Catholic bishop needed. Therefore, their marriage is valid.


#16

You appear to be incredibly selective as to which portions of Canon Law apply to whom. Consistency, please – or citation!


#17

The canon *itself *is incredibly selective. The canon states right in it that it applies only to a Catholic seeking to marry a non-Catholic.

You cannot get out of that canon the meaning you are trying to apply to it. It’s very clear.


#18

Whee, and down the slippery slope we go! Pets and inanimate objects are incapable of consent, and consent must be a prerequisite to marriage – it’s what differentiates it from long-term rape. As to #3, that’s what divorce is for. Thanks for playing!
[/quote]

Midrath, you left out my explanation:
“I hope you see the absurdity in this reasoning. To get back to the OP, the main reason why Catholics and other Christians have such a big problem with states legislating gay marriage is because we believe marriage was instituted by God; individuals and governments don’t have the right to change its nature.”

You make my argument for me when you attempt to write off my argument as a slippery slope fallacy. As you say its wrong for someone to marry their pet because it violates the other requirements of marriage. Same with homosexual marriage. Two members of the same sex do not fulfill the requirements for marriage as instituted by God, whether natural or sacramental, because the relationship does not consist of one man and one woman and is not open to procreation. We can’t change marriage; God made it, not us.


#19

Actually, the canon I quoted would render any marriage I sought to undertake – homo- or heterosexual – invalid because I have not formally defected from the Church. You’re right that it doesn’t apply specifically to baptized non-Christians, though (and marriage between the unbaptized is not sacramental at all, apparently; well, that’s only 2/3 of the earth’s population). I wasn’t able to find a canon explicitly laying down whether or not those cases would be considered valid; the one you quoted doesn’t concern itself with validity, and I am unsure whether it refers to big-S or little-s ‘sacrament’.

[quote=brianwalden]Midrath, you left out my explanation:
“I hope you see the absurdity in this reasoning. To get back to the OP, the main reason why Catholics and other Christians have such a big problem with states legislating gay marriage is because we believe marriage was instituted by God; individuals and governments don’t have the right to change its nature.”

You make my argument for me when you attempt to write off my argument as a slippery slope fallacy. As you say its wrong for someone to marry their pet because it violates the other requirements of marriage. Same with homosexual marriage. Two members of the same sex do not fulfill the requirements for marriage as instituted by God, whether natural or sacramental, because the relationship does not consist of one man and one woman and is not open to procreation. We can’t change marriage; God made it, not us.
[/quote]

Forgive me, I’d wanted to think that this wasn’t merely another go at ‘let’s legislate our morality, to hell with finding common ground!’ Ah well. The bit about appliances and pets is a slippery-slope fallacy, like it or not; as to the rest, that’s simply trying to push everyone else into your definition of marriage.

It’s no skin off my nose if you believe a Catholic marriage can only be between two opposite-sexed people; but why, oh why, do you feel compelled to make sure everyone else’s idea of marriage is Catholic?


#20

Non-Catholics aren’t under the authority of a Bishop, who would they check with? Baptized non-Catholics who marry in Christ are in valid, sacramental marriages. Only Catholics must get the approval of their Bishop before marrying a non-Catholic.


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.