Other than the fact that gay marriage is not open to the gift of life, how else do you explain to someone a catholic stance on the issue. I am trying to explain it to my friend but I’m just not doing a good job. I’m going along the lines of how it’s an inuslt to God to legalize it.
What are Catholics doing to stem the tide of legally-sanctioned adulterous liasons called marriage after divorce?
From what I understood was that if one was divorced, they werent allowed to get married in the Catholic church again.
I admit I am a bit confused to certian things about the Catholic church…its why I am here. From what I understand, by homosexuals wanting to legalize gay marriage, they want to be able to come into my church (if they wish) and be able to get married. they want to make it a law that states that despite the fact that the church believes it is a sin, the church still has to abide by it. If I am wrong, I would like to know.
Occassionally i get into a debate about the whole gay marriage thing and whenever I state that I am against it based on religious grounds, people automatically attack my religion and imply that I should just drop it all together. I dont know how to logically explain to someone that that idea is insane…how can someone actually expect another person to just dump their religion and their beliefs because it doesnt suit someone elses? Their whole argument is that theres lots of other things the bible says that you should do (like not eat shrimp and to own slaves and to beat women…at least according to these people are argue with) and so there for the fact that i believe in any of it is stupid.
I want to defend my faith, I just dont know how.
As long as were on the subject of types of marriage.
Why should the civil law not allow polygyny? If marriage in not between one man and one woman, then why cannot a Muslim man marry 4 woman? It could be 4 separate marriages. It is religious freedom. If the state cannot impose the one man-one woman restriction, they why should it deny a woman who wants to marry an (already married) man? If there is no compulsion, then what is the problem? After all, I think science can prove that men are, by nature, are inclined to be polygamous.
Perhaps the Catholic Church is wrong on the issue of marriage after divorce. May the Orthodox church are actually more orthodox on this issue.
What I don’t understand is why that matters! Watching television, playing video games, reading, attending school, working in a factory or office, and building a model airplane aren’t open to the “gift of life” either, but no one seems to have a problem with these activities. Awfully suspicious…
That’s right - unless they go through a process of annulment, which declares the previous marriage invalid, and so makes them free to marry again.
I live in the UK, so the situation may be a little different here. But the concern that churches could be forced to marry people is unfounded, under British law at least. In terms of civil law, ‘marriage’ is a partnership arrangement registered with the authorities, and could in theory be widened to include same-sex couples. But sacramental marriage - marriage as a process undergone in a church - is understood as being between a man and a woman, and inasmuch as that traditional understanding of marriage involves a religious ceremony and a sacrament, it is impossible to be coerced into performing this for people who don’t meet that defintion.
For that to change, the government would have to assume the right to be able to dictate to religious groups who should be admitted to them and who should be eligible for a particular sacrament or status within the Church. We have a separation of church and state here just as you do in the US, and here at least that would make it impossible for a government to be able to tell the Church who it could and could not admit to a particular sacrament.
They shouldn’t, and it’s very sad that they do expect that.
We all find ourselves in that situation sometimes. .
You don’t “marry” your activities. A marriage is between two consenting people. According to God, that means one man and one woman. I don’t see how the government can step in and tell us what to believe. What ever happened to separation of chuch and state? :shrug:
It’s not suspicious! :ehh: Read a little history and you will see that homosexuality has been frowned upon by all cultures and times with only occassional exceptions. It doesn’t take much common sense to know that P goes in V and not in A. Also, you seem to missing that marriage is a sacrament. This means that it is a means of grace and proceation and rearing of children is the primary goal of marriage. Religion (any religion) is more than just superstition. It is a useful tried and true method for arranging society to defend and perpetuate itself. So, make sure u look at the issue in context.
But I want to marry 4 woman. Of course, all parties would be willing and there would be separate marriage contracts and ceremonies. Who are you to push your morality on me? :mad:
I think you are missing the point of my “awfully suspicious” part. We see it throughout history not because it is some sort of moral truth, but because people are simply intolerant of people who are different, even if the differences are innocuous. It doesn’t prove that homosexuality is immoral, but it does prove that people are jerks.
And, in the same vein, you should look at history. Religion has done its fair share of dividing societies and motivating people to destroy societies. We’d be better off without it, in my opinion. A reciprocated contractual agreement runs society better than a shared culture ever will.
Think of it this way. If we were a society of 100 people living amongst other tribes who want to kill us and take our possessions. How would we respond to those you wanted to ride each other like the devil is riding them? You may think this is a peculiar example. However, if you think Usama bin Laden wants to hold hands with Americans sing kumbaya, then (a Judas Priest sang) you have another thing coming! No worries, though. Europe will soon be Eurabia and there will be no Eurovision for SSA crowd.
I guess I’m a jerk too for being intolerant of murderers, rapists, pedophiles, thieves, etc. etc., using your logic. Without any moral truth, there is no such thing as society; it’s a free-for-all.
Sure. Then the Lawyers will run society, kinda like where we’re heading now in the US. They’ve done a bang-up job, haven’t they? “Reciprocated contractual agreement”? This is one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever heard. Perhaps you could elaborate on how such agreements would run a society better than morality-based laws?
We’re facing this same issue in the public square in Guam right now. A Guam legislator has just introduced a bill that would legalize same-sex civil unions. Anyway, click here for%between% a link to some articles that we wrote in response to this issue. Many of them explain the Catholic stance on the issue, and on homosexuality in general. Most of the articles were written by Fr. Francis Walsh, a moral theologian from the Blessed Diego Luis de San Vitores Catholic Theological Institute for Oceania. I hope they might be useful.
Don’t! Do not use primarily religious arguments - it’s not necessary and, especially since we’re Americans, your friend will most likely assert that the 1st amendment excludes the possibility of making laws “respecting an establishment of religion” - which is correct.
But that doesn’t mean that gay marriage should be the law of the land; far from it! I do have a positive suggestion for how you could argue; I don’t know if it will work. But it’s worth a try, and either way, avoid bringing God or religion into the issue. Proponents of homosexual marriage will not listen if you do that.
Here is how I would argue:
Marriage actually isn’t the creation of religion; it’s a very primordial human phenomenon. It makes sense that society would give special status and treatment to a man and woman in a monogamous sexual relationship. Why? Because that is the kind of relationship which results in the generation of children. The family is the most basic unit of human civilization, and sexual activity between a man and a woman is necessary for the generation of children. Furthermore, it seems that people in our society agree that monogamous sexual relationships are a better, more reliable way of safely and healthily bringing children into the world. That is why most people would oppose polygamy for purely natural (i.e. non-religious) reasons.
The same applies to gay marriage, for this reason: nobody has a “right” to the benefits and privileges associated with “marriage.” It makes sense that the state should encourage, with special treatment, the kind of sexual relationship which naturally results in stable families - I am not implying that a gay couple cannot have a stable sexual relationship; I am not. But a sexual relationship between them cannot produce children, and it is entirely legitimate for the state to give special treatment to the kind of sexual relationship which is ideal for society, and that includes one that is both stable and procreative.
None of this means that we shouldn’t be compassionate. None of this means that we should discriminate against homosexuals in any way. I personally have several gay friends *. I really do shudder whenever gay people are objects of ridicule or abuse. But you should quietly, respectfully, and compassionately point out to your opponent in this debate that none of this means that the state has an obligation to bestow upon same-sex relationships the title and benefits of marriage; on the contrary, it is far better for the state to let marriage be the domain exclusively of the kind of sexual relationship which is ideal for the functioning of civilization.
Gay people might be offended by that last sentence, so make sure to point out that it does not imply in any way that their relationships are not “ideal” for civilization except insofar as they cannot biologically produce children.*
It would do nothing to legalize it either. If it isn’t sanctioned by God, then it is a worldly finite binding doomed for real death. The basis of the wrong is rooted in God’s definition of marriage. Newadvent.org has a good explaination.
As such any flagrant abuse of God’s Law is a grave sin, and becomes even graver by attempting to give it sacramental value, which is simply playing god. The ceremony is a cult ritual officiated by the devil. And since sin compounds, the effect lasts through life and will be manifested through children involved and their children due to the lack of protective grace the union would otherwise warrant.
BTW, for those of you on the apologetics front I have a couple of new things up on my site. Have you seen the Prof Robert George/Doug Kmiec debate that the World Over Live is featuring this week? It is so good. I have captured much of Prof George’s comments (can’t stand Kmiec) where he basically takes the wheels off the pro-life Obama Catholics while asking for their support now.
Also have some of Micah Wilson’s most recent comments on what a strange situation pro-lifers find themselves in now: ““The lines of disagreement in the philosophical debate over abortion have never been clearer. While the politics of abortion remain as tumultuous and contested as they have ever been, the underlying philosophical, ethical, and scientific issues have been clarified to the extent that any careful person can examine the arguments of both sides and come to a principled and informed position.”
So while they are winning the argument, the most dedicated pro-abortion President takes office – unable to pass FOCA but completely committed to advancing step by step the abortion industry’s agenda.
The reason I’m posting this here is that I also have reading selections for Prof George’s Clash of Orthodoxies. It is THE handbook on abortion, euthanasia, pornography, embryonic stem cell research, marriage and sexual morality, and the role the of the courts in resolving such issues. If you are engaging the great liberal unwashed on these issues, feel free to copy and paste. There is a whole section on gay marriage deserving of your attention. It is such a difficult issue to navigate and you will be greatly served by Professor George’s rhetoric.
Sexual Acts That Are Not Reproductive In Type Cannot Be Marital Acts
Although not all reproductive-type acts are marital, there can be no marital act that is not reproductive in type. Masturbatory, sodomitical, or other sexual acts that are not reproductive in type cannot unite persons organically: that is, as a single reproductive
Therefore such acts cannot be intelligibly engaged in for the sake of marital (i.e. one-flesh, bodily) unity as such. They cannot be marital acts. Rather, persons who perform such acts must be doing so for the sake of ends or goals that are extrinsic to
themselves as bodily persons.
Sexual satisfaction, or (perhaps) mutual sexual satisfaction, is sought as a means of releasing tension, or obtaining (and sometimes sharing) pleasure, either as an end in itself, or as a means to some other end, such as expressing affection, esteem, friendliness, etc. In any case, where one-flesh union cannot (or cannot rightly) be sought as an end-in-itself, sexual activity necessarily involves the instrumentalization of the bodies of those participating in such activity to extrinsic ends.
Marital Acts Are Truly Unitive
In marital acts…the bodies of persons who unite biologically are not reduced to the status of mere instruments. Rather, the end, goal, and intelligible point of sexual union is the good of marriage itself. On this understanding, such union is not a merely instrumental good, i.e., a reason for action whose intelligibility as a reason depends on other ends to which it is a means, but is, rather, an intrinsic good, i.e., a reason for actions whose intelligibility as a reason depends on no such other end.
The central and justifying point of sex is not pleasure (or even the sharing of pleasure) per se, however much sexual pleasure is sought – rightly sought – as an aspect of the perfection of marital union; the point of sex, rather, is marriage itself, considered as bodily (“one flesh”) union of persons consummated and actualized by acts that are reproductive in type.
Because in marital acts sex is not instrumentalized, such acts are free of the self-alienating and dis-integrating qualities of masturbatory and sodomitical sex. Unlike these and other non-marital sex acts, marital acts effect no practical dualism which volitionally and, thus, existentially (though of course not metaphysically) separates the body from the conscious and desiring aspect to the self which is understood and treated by the acting person as the true self which inhabits and uses the body as its instrument….
Marital acts are truly unitive, and in no way self-alienating, because the bodily or biological aspect of human beings is “part of, and not merely an instrument of, their personal reality.”
Heavy but effective. Not all the book is like that however. From an Amazon review: “A remarkable thing about The Clash of Orthodoxies is its accessibility. George attained his high standing in the academy by writing books and articles addressed to scholars in highly specialized areas of law and philosophy. In this latest work, however, he addresses the wider public. The Clash of Orthodoxies is a pleasure to read. It is lively and engaging, and avoids academic jargon and unnecessary technical analysis.”
Having attended a commitment ceremony last weekend (long story, I was a non-participant, didn’t care to go but was quasi-obligated to do so for familiy peace and did go to reconciliation the following weekend…)
A couple of things stood out—
Misusage of two bible passages to further their cause.
Now–I understand when they want religion left out of their bedroom…but when scripture is misused and perverted interpretations attempt to show a homosexual relationship–that would be blasphemous. (Ruth and Naomi and David and Jonathan).
But often–I just stick with science since that is what they like to use to promote their agenda. (Born that way, in the DNA, etc)
Our bodies were not designed for the usages that occur in a homosexual relationship. It is against science. Often it is brought up that other species have homosexual encounters–but that is not the norm either. In fact it would be a certain extinction of that species if it became the norm (unless scientists became involved inappropriately in articifically prolonging the species.)
It stands that if it was in the DNA–it is a glitch and nothing more. Perhpas an uncorrectable glitch–but a glitch none the less.
Science seems to make it more than religion b/c folks don’t want religion legislated (despite having ceremonies in supposed churches that pervert the Bible to make it seem like God blesses this union which is not a true union biologically.)
In the end though, the homosexual does not care what you or I think.
I would also like to know this. For me, personally, I think gays should be allowed to marry each other.
Well they do because they need to defeat the Church’s teachings. Don’t let them fool you.
“The Church urges firm resistance to the grim doctrine that homosexuality is simply a matter of fate, and the dehumanizing idea that one’s core identity is determined by one’s sexual desires. “Homosexual” means someone with dominantly same-sex desires, while “gay” refers to a person whose self-identity is determined by such desires. It is a meaningful difference and it is the latter that has waged war against the Church’s understanding of homosexuality. This understanding has been defined by the gay community as homophobia, even though it is the gay community that through its institutionalized self loathing prolongs a lack of healing, a fuller understanding of the condition and a war with bigots that affects every homosexual living in the country.”
My post today discusses Church teaching generated from four sources: Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Kathleen Curran Sweeney, Robert P. George, M. Cathleen Kaveny and Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa. I’ve also posted on the pages section a long abstract titled “Causes of Homosexuality: A Christian Appraisal of the Data” by Andrew J. Sodergren, M.S. who works at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family.
His paper discusses some of the recent scientific findings on the causes of homosexuality in the context of a Christian anthropology. After reviewing the major findings in the empirical literature, the discussion focuses on how such an anthropology can account for these findings without compromising the traditional Christian ethical teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral and the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered. Of particular importance here are notions of original sin, fallen nature, the sexual difference, and the virtue of chastity.
If you are going discuss homosexuality with gay advocates, you need to get all this right because if you don’t you will embarrass your Church and leave yourself open to charges of homophobia or bigotry which our gay friends trot out as soon as they realize you are taking the Church’s position. The Church is RIGHT however in ways that they know all too well and cannot refute except by the usual ad hominem attacks and rants about homophobia and bigotry. Every man or woman who suffers from same sex attraction.
Quite simply the Church refuses to believe that can a condition be “normal” or “natural” when statistics show it leads to early death; sexual addiction and promiscuity; inability to procreate normally; numerous health problems including STDs, cancer, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS and other life-threatening diseases; drug and alcohol abuse; and a high risk of depression and suicide. Gay happiness is a Hollywood myth.
Read it and by all means USE it. Get the message out to families.