Question About Gay Marriage


#1

Ok guys I need help working through this. I need assistance in understanding why gay marriage should not be legal. There is separation between church and state in America, so why should religious views on marriage interfere with the state’s view on marriage? For there to be an argument against legalizing civil gay marriage, one would have to provide non religious reasons. Of course I don’t believe gay marriage is a thing, but again the state has a completely different defintion than the church when it comes to marriage. People sometimes bring up natural law as a reason it shouldn’t be legal, but I really don’t see this bearing much weight, because not everyone believes in natural law. What I’m getting at is that even before the supreme court changed the defintion of marriage in the state’s view, it was already radically different from how the church views marriage. People bring up studies that say children without both a mother and father is detrimental to their health. Most of those studies are done done comparing children with heterosexual children, and those with a single parent… it’s not comparing children with homosexual parents and heterosexual parents. Even if there are studies on that, I’ve seen studies that say there’s no difference. So the argument isn’t really that convincing. I’m just looking for a rationale to believe this. Sodomy, contraception, divorce, etc are all against what the church teaches and what natural law teaches, but it is still legal, so what exactly is the reason gay marriage cannot be seen as legal, but yet immoral in the eyes of a catholic?


#2

Simply because marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Anything else is not marriage–it’s something else. The state, no one’s state, has the right to redefine marriage. Now, they can call homosexual unions whatever they please, but it’ not marriage, never has been, and cannot be merely by redefining marriage into something it isn’t. It’s like calling a duck a chicken merely because you’d like all ducks be chickens. It makes no sense.


#3

I’ve wondered about the applicability of those studios to other scenarios too. My sister is divorced with a child. The child is effectively being raised by all of us; grand parents, uncles, and aunt are constantly a part of his life. I wonder if some of those studies were seeing what is more the effects of a child being raised in a single income home vs a dual income home, or the effects of there being more availability of at least one parent to the child since in a house with two parents one of the parents might be available while the other is preoccupied.


#4

Why is this in the “World News” forum?


#5

MODERATOR NOTICE

Since this is dealing with secular law, not canon law, I’ll leave the thread open for now.

In the future, please follow the forum rules posted at the top of this forum when starting a thread here.


#6

That’s what I’m getting at. We believe what the church teaches about marriage. But why should our view have anything to do with the state? Church and state should be separate. Since there is no objective definition of marriage in the state, how can there be an argument against it being legal? The definition by the state before gay marriage became legalized was still vastly different from what catholics believe marriage is. Why should any religious or philosophical view about marriage trump another’s view from the perspective of the state, if the church and state are to be separate?


#7

I wrote nothing about separation of church and state. I stated that the state has no right to redefine marriage, ergo, there has been no change in the definition of marriage, but only a pretended one. I do not recognize the state’s right to do what is impossible to do/what they do not have the right to do. The state was wrong to redefine marriage to allow gay “marriage.” One day it will be shown to be wrong, just as the Roe v Wade decision was wrong or the Dred Scott decision that claimed slaves were 3/5 persons in order to allow slavery.


#8

What source are you referring to that states marriage, in the state’s view, has to be between a man and a woman and can never change? Obviously what we call matriage and what the state calls marriage is different, but why does our view trump others that do not believe what we do?


#9

Because it is the core of the family. Of course, the state has redefined family, as well, but again, they have no right to do so. A man and a woman are the natural means for propagating other human beings. It is how we are made. A man and a man do not make up such a core bond, nor female and female. It’s simply biology–science, which everyone thinks trumps all else these days except when it is inconvenient to what the want.

At one time it was common sense. We don’t even need to argue from religious belief here, when it is obvious that man and woman produce child, nor any other combination. We have to ask, if gays can “marry” merely because they claim they love each other in a sexual bond, why not other combinations of humans or even animals, if “love” is to be the only criteria? If you think that’s absurd, you haven’t been keeping up with efforts to do those very things on the strength of gays being allowed to have legal marriages.


#10

I think the Church teaching according to the Syllabus of Errors is that the Church needs to define morality, not the State, and the State should follow. This total independence of the two is not Catholic but modernist. Yge State should follow the Church in morality - not influencing it, nor being independent of its morality.


#11

Then why is it okay for people of non child bearing age to get married. And I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this, but why must the state accept your defintion of marriage as the only one? Why couldn’t it just be a committed life relationship of two consenting adults?


#12

Of course we agree gay “marriage” is immoral in the catholic sense of marriage. Being moral and being legal are two different issues. How you argue here, it seems that premarital sex is not only immoral, but should be illegal if your premise follows to conclusion.


#13

I agree. Polygamy is now on the table as deserving something legal. Long before the State existed, men and women bonded, had children and raised the children they both brought into this world.

Ed


#14

For the simple reason that they are a man and a woman free to marry. And not all people over 40 don’t have children. It’s been known for women to have children into their 50’s.

And I’m just trying to get to the bottom of this, but why must the state accept your defintion of marriage as the only one? Why couldn’t it just be a committed life relationship of two consenting adults?

Let me turn that around on you and ask, why must I accept the state redefining marriage as correct? Remember, they had to invent the idea that marriage is something other than a union of a man and a woman. It was always so before that, even in pagan countries that allowed men to fool around as much as they pleased. They still married a woman, which made them a married couple.

The whole “two consenting adults” meme is also an invention meant to give validity, originally, for unmarried couples to live together when it was illegal to do so. But now it’s applied to any two adults. It’s won’t stay just gays, though, as I stated before, the next thing on the agenda is incest, polygamy, adult-child sex, and bestiality. Those who promote gay couplings will deny it, but it’s being pushed just the same. The state now has no defense against allowing such unions since it has taken upon itself a right it never had–to redefine human relationships.


#15

Hello, Bradski’s law again. Gay marriage has nothing to do with incest, polygamy, pedophilia or beastiality . It is offensive and incorrect to try and relate them in any way. Thank you.


#16

Nope, it’s not. The acceptance of gay “marriage” will open wide the door for all these other things. A lot of people said that contraception would eliminate abortion–it didn’t. People said that adults living together wouldn’t destroy marriage–it has for many, many people. We were told we were worrying about nothing when we said our religious rights wouldn’t be taken from us if we opposed gay “marriage”–it has been and is continuing to be. It never ends with one abuse of truth, but always devolves into worse abuses–every single time. That’s reality, my friend.


#17

Slippery slope I suppose, but those issues are going to come up regardless of gay marriage. However, except for polygamy they have major consent issues and are unlikely to advance. Otoh, I’m amazed that the prohibition on polygamy have stood as long as they have. My main opposition is that divorce, inheritance, etc gets unusually complex.


#18

The North American Man/Boy Love Association.

Ed


#19

Of course the state has the right to redefine it for legal purposes.
As our moderator, Robert Bay, points out…this is secular law, not canon law.
The government has the ability to change civic, secular laws as they and the people see fit, that is one of their jobs. Laws and situations and conditions and categories have been redefined in the past as our understanding of them has changed…and will continue to be.
The dictionary has changed its definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage. But even before that, “marriage” has always also meant: Union, alliance, fusion, mixture, mix, blend, amalgamation, combination, merger.
This is a thing.
Same sex partnerships have been around for centuries.
What makes no sense is to insist people who are not of a specific faith to follow that faith’s doctrines.

.


#20

There is no rational argument against civil marriage equality. The smartest minds in our world can’t advance a meaningful argument against it. That’s why civil marriage equality is the law of our land and most of our country’s citizens are more than fine with it.


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.