[quote="Wardog, post:9, topic:253618"]
Is marriage a civil or religious responsibility? A long time ago this responsiblity was given to the state, who issues the required marriage license regardless if the ceremony is civil or religious.
If marriage is a civil right, then the state gets to determine the definition of marriage. One does not have to be Catholic to be an American. Generally we consider a separation of state and churdh to be a good thing. Marriage is being redefined whether we like it or not. There is little worry that the Catholic Church will be required to recognize same sex marriages, just like they don't recognize the validity of a marriage not performed by the Church. The Church cannot be forced to accept same sex marriages, but the Church cannot force the civil state to not accept same sex marriages.
Something else to consider. Which is the lesser of two evils; a single mother with fatherless children to raise, or two women in a committed relationship to raise those children? A child raised in a series of foster homes or an orphanage, or a child adopted and raised by two men in a legal relationship? You may not like either choice, but assume that those are your only choices. You do not have the ability to force two people to marry against their will, so don't say that there is a third option where the parent enters a heterosexual marriage.
Wardog, you appear to be extremely confused, you sound like you think homosexual couples are the ideal in child rearing or at least it is the same as a traditional man-woman couple. You state you are a Roman Catholic; it is time for you to dust off your CCC, if you even have one. Paragraph 2357 states “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” I would contend that redefining marriage is actually making it something else.
The Catholic Church sees sex (the marital act or coitus) within marriage as its ORDERED purpose. The marital act is basically babies and bounding for the married couple. Society tries to as loudly as possibly tell you otherwise, but that doesn’t mean society is correct. As important as chastity is to marriage, the resulting children from the marital act are arguably more important because they are the next generation. The procreative component of sex is the aspect in question, especially as it relates to the definition of marriage. To deny the natural reproductive purpose of sex is moving toward irrational philosophy and losing touch with reality. While this is the path our society is on which started at legalizing contraception, this doesn’t mean that proper education wouldn’t turn the tide, and that if people who know better, like an educated Catholic, would vote for the lesser of two evils when people are running for elected public office. Keep in mind I am not affiliated with any political party, but I think once democratic Catholics start loving unborn children more than they hate the GOP, abortion will become illegal. So what is your agenda? Apparently it is homosexual marriage by your comments, not Christ’s Kingdom. You need to come to grips with this conflict internally.
We live in a democracy, which means we can vote for the officials who become “the state”. If you know something to be true and good for **all of society **than you should want that to be the laws in place, marriage has always been understood as between a man and a woman for the simple reason that the norm had always previously been children come from marriage. But since the contraceptive culture took over, people have children out of wedlock far too often, which is adding to the confusion or what makes this the Land of Confusion (Genesis, Phil Collins not Adam and Eve). Same sex couples can’t have children, biologically by themselves. That fact is why the Catholic Church has always seen such relationships which are unchaste as intrinsically disordered or unnatural.
THE ROOT of the problem is unchaste living, which has been made much more prevalent by contraception. I would argue that the world would be a better place if everyone was chaste. It would for sure be a lot simpler when describing relationships.
As far as your lesser of two evils rationale: 1 person/parent teaching their children correct morals and understanding of the natural human condition is much more valuable than 2 or 4 or 100 people who are confused themselves. What you are saying is like saying you should take children away from a widow, you aren’t using logic.
Also people do have the option to enter into a (heterosexual) marriage; marriage is always implying between a man and a woman. Only recently people are trying to call same sex relationships marriage, but you can’t physically have children in a same sex so called marriage so it isn’t marriage. How can a couple say they are willing to accept children from God when it is known that it is impossible for them to do so (2 men or 2 women, can’t have children biologically together)? There is no law saying unrelated people have to get married to live together. If you don’t want children don’t get married. If you do, biology class should have taught you where babies come from. While ethics show in an ordered society ideally children should come only from the permanent relationship of marriage. This would be a fact if everyone was chaste.
Somewhere everyone got confused about sex and its connection to procreation. That is what Marriage and Family is, a clear representation of this connection in an ordered way. Catholics remember marriage is a sacrament, you promise fidelity to God and to your spouse. You promise acceptance of children. You can break your vows in ways other than adultery.