Comments on: Gay Marriage Signs You Won’t See

By: SearchCz

SearchCz — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:11:00 +0000

Abadilla, there are plenty of Christian churches that bless same-se unions. And in jurisdictions where same-sex couples are permitted to marry, there are Christian churches performing those marriages. And there are many, many more that will not solemnize a same-sex union – which is a fine example of people freely exercising their religious beliefs.

I have no problem with The Church limiting marriage to unions of one man and one woman. The problem comes with the insistence that this belief be imposed on every other citizen. Insisting that one’s religious beliefs be enshrined in law and enforced on everybody else is what the Taliban does! We don’t need a Roman Catholic version of Sharia law here in the states.

By all means, practice and profess your religious beliefs! But don’t try to gain adherents through coercion & force.

By: abadilla

abadilla — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:27:00 +0000

In another post, I already explained the position of the Church on gay marriage, if we can call it that.
It isn’t just the inability to have children the Church frowns upon, but two males or two females rearing children, because the Church believes that the best we can do for a child is to rear that child with a male and a female role model. Now, let us say two heterosexual people who live together want to adopt a child. Does the Church frown upon that? Yes, again, because it believes the child should have a male and a female role model and psychiatrists and psychologists agree that is the best situation for a child to grow into a healthy adult.
Having said that, the Church will never see the children of homosexual couples as “bad” children or the like, because EVERY child is innocent of the circumstances in which he or she was conceived.

By: abadilla

abadilla — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:20:00 +0000

I’m not a diplomat or someone who could put it charitably, so, forgive me if I seem harsh.
It isn’t just that gays can’t procreate, that being one of the ends of marriage, but a homosexual union (sexual) is looked upon by the Church as sinful. Why? the Christian vision of marriage is that a man and a woman will become one flesh and that they will be fruitful and multiply.
I am sure that in ancient Rome and in the Greco Roman world in general homosexuality was popular and sexual relations between men and men and women and women was not frowned upon. Christianty came into the picture and it condemned it from the word “go.”
For us to change the teaching would mean to ignore the entire vision of marriage as understood by Tradition, the Scriptures and the Magisterium, and the Church won’t do that.
Now, will the Church have to recognized that a certain percentage of the population is gay and would like to get married in the Church? Yes, but the moral dilemma will still be there because it can never accept homosexual acts as being less than sinful.
Before you have a cow with the Catholic Church, consider that I know of no Christian church that teaches homosexual acts are O.K.
Having said that, I have a gay brother I love him very much and he and and I have argued about this issue heatedly, but he does not doubt my love for him nor does he doubt that the teaching of the Church will never change on this matter.
Just as we Catholics must acknowldege there are gay folks out there, you must also recognize the boundaries the Church has to work with you and others.
I go to Mass in West Hollywood, a gay community, and I see gay folks at Mass all the time. Are they keeping the teaching of the Church in their lives or not? I don’t know, only they and God knows.

By: SearchCz

SearchCz — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:53:00 +0000

… but BCAUSE we are both men, and therefore unable to conceive, we are not allowed to marry. Explain?

By: SearchCz

SearchCz — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:11:00 +0000

Yet, church-y folk lean on procreation as an argument against allowing same-sex couples to marry. If having kids is not necessary in order for a couple to be considered married, quit telling folks that they are excluded BECAUSE OF their union’s inability to produce children!

By: SearchCz

SearchCz — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:06:00 +0000

Joe,

You suggest that an objection to the status-quo of discriminatory marriage law would be like complaining about non-farmers not getting farm subsidies. (At this point, you might go ahead and look up “analogy”)

Farm subsidies are only for farmers, right? Just like the benefits of marriage are just for people who marry.

But here’s the problem: the status-quo tells some people that they may not marry, and that the thing they do that is substantially similar to marriage cannot be recognized, codified, or legally protected as such. This is not a case of people choosing not to marry ( or people choosing not to farm ) then complaining that they do not get the benefits that would have come from that activity they opted out of.

Not all farmers are the same. Not all go about their farming in the same way. But those differences do not automatically disqualify one from receiving a subsidy, because they are not relevant to whether or not we consider the activity to be “farming”.

Same with couples – not all are the same. Some get together for the purpose of having and raising children, while others join with no intention of ever having kids. Those differences do not automatically disqualify a couple from marrying, because they are not relevant to our consideration of that couple and their commitment.

So when we talk about marriage equality, it is inapt to suggest that the difference between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples is as clear and distinct as the difference between a farmer and a non-farmer.

By: Joe M

Joe M — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:54:00 +0000

I wasn’t making an analogy. I was pointing out that our laws already do not treat people equally, depending on what they do. To go even closer to the issue, your interpretation suggests that people who choose never to marry are experiencing an injustice because people who choose to marry are treated differently.

Your assertion that it is not fair to define marriage as being between a man and a woman is your opinion. Just like there are people who think that farming subsidies are unfair. Neither argument stands on the basis that it’s a unique example of the law treating people unequally. They are opinions.

By: SearchCz

SearchCz — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:28:00 +0000

No, Joe. Your analogy is inapt. If you want to make it about farm subsidies, its more like this:

Government institutes a farm subsidy.

Farmer X and Farmer Y apply for the subsidy. Farmer X gets it, but Farmer Y is denied. Because, imagine, the government doesn’t recognize plowing, planting, tending and harvesting by left-handed people as farming.

Farmer X and Y are completing the essentials of farming, but in different ways. There’s no way it would be fair, right, reasonable or legal to subsidize one and deny the other.

By: Msgr. Charles M. Mangan

Msgr. Charles M. Mangan — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:13:00 +0000

J.M.J. You don’t say what Church you belong to, but if you are a Catholic, “your” Church has never said that there is anything wrong with your marriage. In what did your marriage preparation consist?

By: abadilla

abadilla — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 00:50:00 +0000

And I have explained over and over again that the Church does not reject a couple who are married for not having children when the issue is infertilty rather than being fertile and choosing NOT to have children. The Church is utterly clear in making the distinction between those who can not have children through no fault of their own, and those who refuse to have children.
Also, the Church has to fight against most people who believe in the Malthusian theory and can’t understand why the Church insists on married Catholic couples having children.