Catholic homosexuals

**Daved** · 01-26-2010

Originally Posted by DavidP

Now, Daved, let me answer your question (since I've given the background and brought Mario F. up to speed).

I understand very well the problem of imposing ones views on others. Often times this can lead to a "minority tyranny" or even a "majority tyranny" when one group tyrannically imposes its views on others.

However, to fully understand the issue, you have to realize the impact this legislation would have had on churches in California. It wasn't simply a matter of allowing same-gender couples to marry in civil courts. In fact, California already had a law allowing same-gender civil unions with all the same rights as marriages. Instead, the implications of it would have (according to my knowledge) even held churches accountable if they refused to marry same gender couples. It was a matter of preserving the freedom of religion as well.

Thanks for the response. I have a few points.

1) I think the implications you speak of were merely fears, and most people that I heard did not believe that churches would actually be required to wed same-sex couples. (Although perhaps required is the wrong word, as I believe the worry was that they could lose their tax-exempt status if they don't, but would still be allowed to continue as churches following their own beliefs.) Massachusetts has had same sex marriage for years. As far as I know they haven't forced churches to marry same-sex couples there.

2) At the time of Prop 8, same-sex marriages were allowed in California. If the writers of prop 8 were concerned with preventing churches from being required to wed same sex couples, they could have written an amendment that reserved the rights of churches to marry whomever they choose. They did not do that, they wrote the amendment to revoke the right to marriage that gays had at that time.

3) Civil unions versus marriage is an interesting side discussion, but basically you end up with the separate but (not-so-)equal problem. I guess if one is concerned that allowing same sex marriages would lead to churches having to perform them, then that distinction might be relevant, but otherwise I don't see any reason to use different terminology for the two types of unions.

4) Separate from the issues you mentioned above, I wonder whether the imposition of the values of a certain religious group (those that don't allow same sex marriage) doesn't infringe upon the values of other religious groups (those that do allow same sex marriages). How can one claim that allowing same sex marriage infringes upon their religious freedom, without acknowledging that disallowing them would infringe upon the religious freedoms of others?

**C_ntua** · 01-26-2010

Allow me to answer
3) We can use the terminology, religious marriage = ceremony + civil union and civil marriage = civil union. They are not the same thing, they just overlap on the "civil union" part.

4) True. That is why a separation of the term marriage helps avoid thses kind of situations. Banning marriage as a civil union should not be done for religious reasons. Society functions better if it is detached from religion, but allowing the freedom to believe in one. And possibly having some regulations.

Using the same terminology for not exactly the same thing mostly confuses the masses and "ties" the two meaning without a reason.

**Daved** · 01-26-2010

Originally Posted by C_ntua

Allow me to answer
3) We can use the terminology, religious marriage = ceremony + civil union and civil marriage = civil union. They are not the same thing, they just overlap on the "civil union" part.

4) True. That is why a separation of the term marriage helps avoid thses kind of situations. Banning marriage as a civil union should not be done for religious reasons. Society functions better if it is detached from religion, but allowing the freedom to believe in one. And possibly having some regulations.

Using the same terminology for not exactly the same thing mostly confuses the masses and "ties" the two meaning without a reason.

Does this mean you'd advocate changing the legal term of heterosexual civil unions to "civil union" so the same terminology is used for all state-sanctioned unions?

And what does that have to do with whether same sex couples should be allowed to enter into those state-sanctioned unions, whatever they are called?

I haven't followed your other posts in the thread very closely, but it seems from the information above that you would be opposed to legislation banning gay marriage. Is that right?

**Mario F.** · 01-26-2010

Originally Posted by C_ntua

You started the post saying that the church goes against human rights. I am trying to tell you that
1. A religious marriage is different than a civil one. So non-catholic homosexuals shouldn't care at all about the opinion of the church. Neither do they care about religious marriages.
2. A homosexual catholic wouldn't ask to willingly sin, by getting married and having sex with his partner. That is contradictive.

Seesh! No one spoke of church marriages on this thread except you.
Nice talking with you.

EDIT:
And for your information the movement around the globe for the right to marriage for gay persons is a civil rights movement. To my knowledge no group representative enough demands the right to marry by the church.

**Mario F.** · 01-26-2010

I didn't know proposition 8 could allow for church marriages under the American constitution. That does make an excellent argument for the Yes back then. Although Daved does point out the obvious solution that wouldn't infringe on civil rights. In any case this bit of information does explain a lot of what I couldn't understand about the Yes movement.

FWIW, over here (and I believe in about most countries in Europe), church marriage is not recognized by the government, neither any law concerning Marriage extends to church marriage. For all purpose, and without any exceptions, church marriage is not a legal marriage under our constitutions.

That is why a government over here can create a law allowing gay marriages without the churches being forced to adopt it in any way. The law has passed already over here and all the main churches in this country (Catholic, Christian Orthodox, Jewish, Protestant and Muslim) already said they obviously would not allow gay marriages within their temples. And this position is generally accepted by both the population at large and the gay community in particular.

**cpjust** · 01-26-2010

Originally Posted by laserlight

I think that even if civil marriages were universally renamed civil unions, the Catholic Church would continue to take the same stand against same sex civil unions. I deduce this from the fact that the Catholic Church does not consider marriages outside of the Catholic Church to be invalid, and that it considers marriage to be more than just a human institution. Consequently, just renaming does not change anything: a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Originally Posted by Bubba

There would be no such thing as marriage without the Bible and without the church. It has been made a civil contract in the United States b/c obviously people are going to get married so we need tax laws and other laws that protect those individuals. However marriage is most certainly a religous concept and has nothing to do with the government.

Sorry if someone else already said something like this, but I don't have time to read all 7 pages of posts...

Marriage isn't a Catholic-only thing. Muslims get married. Jews get married. Everyone gets married. So why doesn't the Catholic church think that Muslim or Jewish marriages will "erode the institution of marriage"? and what the hell does that even mean?
If 2 gay people get married, how can that POSSIBLY have any effect on anyone else?

If they make it illegal for gay people to get married, what's to stop them from saying Black people can't get married...?

**laserlight** · 01-26-2010

Originally Posted by cpjust

Marriage isn't a Catholic-only thing. Muslims get married. Jews get married. Everyone gets married. So why doesn't the Catholic church think that Muslim or Jewish marriages will "erode the institution of marriage"?

Er... because they are not same sex marriages?

Originally Posted by cpjust

and what the hell does that even mean?
If 2 gay people get married, how can that POSSIBLY have any effect on anyone else?

It shouldn't. However, suppose that you consider same sex marriage to be morally wrong. Suppose that same sex marriage is legal and widespread. Now, even if you teach your children that same sex marriage is morally wrong, by their observation of society, your children may conclude otherwise, i.e., same sex marriage is normal, well and good. A current example would be divorce, which Catholics believe to be morally wrong, but which is permitted and perhaps rather rampant in many jurisdictions. I suspect that it is this kind of scenario that the Catholic Church representative that Mario F. cited had in mind when he talked about same sex marriage eroding the institution of marriage.

Originally Posted by cpjust

If they make it illegal for gay people to get married, what's to stop them from saying Black people can't get married...?

In this case, their own doctrine. More generally, it depends on how sensible and benevolent is the tyranny of the majority, assuming a democracy, along with such factors as a constitution, international pressure, etc.

**Daved** · 01-26-2010

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I didn't know proposition 8 could allow for church marriages under the American constitution. That does make an excellent argument for the Yes back then. Although Daved does point out the obvious solution that wouldn't infringe on civil rights. In any case this bit of information does explain a lot of what I couldn't understand about the Yes movement.

Allowing gay marriage doesn't mean the churches have to perform them. That is just a theoretical consequence of the state sanctioning gay marriages. I don't know exactly how likely it is, but from everything I've seen it isn't all that likely. Proponents of gay marriage considered it a scare tactic/red herring. The vast majority want to allow churches to marry whomever they choose, and of course that's how it should be. In states where laws have been passed specifically allowing gay marriage, it has been legislated that churches can marry who they want just to ease those fears. Obviously if the churches did turn out to be impacted that way in other places, something should be done to fix it.

**cpjust** · 01-26-2010

Originally Posted by laserlight

It shouldn't. However, suppose that you consider same sex marriage to be morally wrong. Suppose that same sex marriage is legal and widespread. Now, even if you teach your children that same sex marriage is morally wrong, by their observation of society, your children may conclude otherwise, i.e., same sex marriage is normal, well and good. A current example would be divorce, which Catholics believe to be morally wrong, but which is permitted and perhaps rather rampant in many jurisdictions. I suspect that it is this kind of scenario that the Catholic Church representative that Mario F. cited had in mind when he talked about same sex marriage eroding the institution of marriage.

In the Bible, owning slaves was commonplace and considered quite normal. Does that mean we should start owning slaves too?

**laserlight** · 01-26-2010

Originally Posted by cpjust

In the Bible, owning slaves was commonplace and considered quite normal. Does that mean we should start owning slaves too?

No, it does not. If you want elaboration, kindly do your own research. It seems to me that information and existing debate on this topic is readily available online.

**Mario F.** · 01-26-2010

Originally Posted by Daved

Allowing gay marriage doesn't mean the churches have to perform them. That is just a theoretical consequence of the state sanctioning gay marriages. I don't know exactly how likely it is, but from everything I've seen it isn't all that likely.

I would assume so too. I have an hard time believing that the state law would force religions to adopt gay marriages. Which, being the case, adds insult to injury by making the Yes, besides a clear violation of civil rights, also a campaign of misinformation.

EDIT: I'm particular skeptic because that would mean a large loophole in the American constitution (Florida constituton?) that would allow the state to interfere in religious doctrine matters. And I don't believe such a gross mistake was made by your legislators.

Originally Posted by laserlight

However, suppose that you consider same sex marriage to be morally wrong. Suppose that same sex marriage is legal and widespread. Now, even if you teach your children that same sex marriage is morally wrong, by their observation of society, your children may conclude otherwise, i.e., same sex marriage is normal, well and good. A current example would be divorce, which Catholics believe to be morally wrong, but which is permitted and perhaps rather rampant in many jurisdictions. I suspect that it is this kind of scenario that the Catholic Church representative that Mario F. cited had in mind when he talked about same sex marriage eroding the institution of marriage.

The society. Not just the institution of marriage.

But even if they both had just said "the institution of marriage", they would still be wrong and they would still be interfering in a government decision. Marriage is not owned by the church. Not in this country, not in the vast majority of democratic countries. Marriage is owned by the state. Regardless of the historical significance of religions in the institution of marriage, it was part of the separation of state from religion the process of transferring marriage to the domain of the state. Churches still perform marriages and these are still the way to sanction said marriage in the eyes of their god. To the point that I could have a civil marriage, divorce and then marry again in the church. Something I could never do, had I married in the church the first time.

However, civil marriage is the only marriage sanctioned by the state. And here the religious institutions have no saying. Just like the Catholic church would have no saying had I decided to marry in a mosque. And assuming I was a follower of a religion which allowed me to marry another man, the catholic church could not interfere in any way and would be forced by law to shut its trap, were I to perform the marriage inside that church doors.

What happens is that religions do not yet fully understand this separation of state and religion. They still cannot fully grasp the idea that a civil marriage is a marriage by the state for the state. They still try to interfere in state laws and civil rights movements which are none of their business. And they do this because the state is laic and democratic, being thus more susceptible to fluctuations in public opinion.

And when these civil rights movements turn against religions for their meddling in state affairs, religions take off their wolf pelt, put on their sheep dress and act victims of the "oh-so-horrible atheits who want to destroy religion in the world".

What is more appalling is that religions constantly complain of a growing lack of influence in society. And accuse hidden forces of trying to silence them, when in fact no other movement civil or otherwise, with the exception of the state, has more power in any democratic country than religious institutions. There is indeed an effort to quiet down religions. Sometimes concerted, sometimes not. But this effort comes exactly of the need to strip down religion from what still is considered by many too much power and too much meddling in state affairs. There is however no effort to destroy religion. Instead to finish the process of separation of state from religion which is still not done.

When the pope speaks to the population of a country against that population government decision to legalize gay civil marriage, the pope is in effect conducting a political campaign against a governmental decision. Not just a religious campaign. When a religious group like the LDS actively supports a campaign for the end of gay civil marriages that institution is interfeering in political affairs. A mandate it does not have in their country constitution. Religious freedom does not speak of their right to interfere in strictly political affairs as much as it may hurt their doctrine. None of these two have the right to do so. And the only reason they do it, is because governments are as of yet still powerless to stop them from lack of crystal clear laws that regulate religious institutions, much like there are for any other kind of institution including civil rights institutions.

This is part of the effort of some civil rights advocates and that religions call an attempt against their religious freedom. The wolf dressing as a sheep complains they are the victim.

**Daved** · 01-26-2010

Originally Posted by Mario F.

I would assume so too. I have an hard time believing that the state law would force religions to adopt gay marriages. Which, being the case, adds insult to injury by making the Yes, besides a clear violation of civil rights, also a campaign of misinformation.

That is how a lot of the No on 8 people felt, which I believe added to the anger and hostility against certain groups. I don't think it was really all that intentional, though. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt on these things, and I think we often fall into a trap of assuming that people who paint a different picture than we would must be doing so intentionally in order to deceive. I don't think that's the case, I think the Yes on 8 folks truly believed that it was a potential outcome.

Originally Posted by laserlight

However, suppose that you consider same sex marriage to be morally wrong. Suppose that same sex marriage is legal and widespread. Now, even if you teach your children that same sex marriage is morally wrong, by their observation of society, your children may conclude otherwise, i.e., same sex marriage is normal, well and good. A current example would be divorce, which Catholics believe to be morally wrong, but which is permitted and perhaps rather rampant in many jurisdictions. I suspect that it is this kind of scenario that the Catholic Church representative that Mario F. cited had in mind when he talked about same sex marriage eroding the institution of marriage.

BTW, this is, to me, the only valid argument for banning same-sex marriage. I just don't agree with it and I also think the right of the minority to marry overrides the rights of these groups to preserve their preferred sanctity of marriage.

**MK27** · 01-26-2010

Originally Posted by laserlight

It shouldn't. However, suppose that you consider same sex marriage to be morally wrong. Suppose that same sex marriage is legal and widespread. Now, even if you teach your children that same sex marriage is morally wrong, by their observation of society, your children may conclude otherwise, i.e., same sex marriage is normal, well and good. A current example would be divorce, which Catholics believe to be morally wrong, but which is permitted and perhaps rather rampant in many jurisdictions. I suspect that it is this kind of scenario that the Catholic Church representative that Mario F. cited had in mind when he talked about same sex marriage eroding the institution of marriage.

This reduces the word "moral" to having absolutely no meaning at all beyond "traditional". If I thought that black people holding management positions was immoral, and taught my children that, but was afraid that my children seeing black people in management positions will undercut my moral authority, now it is my moral duty to ensure that no black people are allowed to occupy any management positions regardless of their relationship to me and my so called morality.

As many people have observed, morality has no value in a completely relativistic universe, which is what you are suggesting -- that individuals can just make up or adopt whatever they want and defend that as "their morality". In truth:

1) Religion does not have a copyright on the concept of morality, not did it invent it.
2) Historically (as well as today) the political purpose of religion (particularly monotheism) is to undercut or obfuscate the broader social/moral fabric of a heterogeneous population and force that population to submit to the authoritarian and totalitarian (aka, fascist) aims of the religion's already organized hegemonic rulers. This is the exact opposite of what a sane individual would consider "moral" in a rational sense.

If you are failing so badly with your kids that this is a real threat, the problem is not outside your family, it's inside (I'd say it's simple: the problem is you) -- which denial and hypocrisy are sufficient explanations for why such people would want to go to hysterical lengths to change reality and make it better fit their small minded, selfish, completely amoral visions.

**laserlight** · 01-26-2010

Originally Posted by MK27

This reduces the word "moral" to having absolutely no meaning at all beyond "traditional".

That is not true, at least to the extent that the religion in question does not adhere to its moral position merely because it is traditional, but also because of its theological development.

Originally Posted by MK27

If I thought that black people holding management positions was immoral, and taught my children that, but was afraid that my children seeing black people in management positions will undercut my moral authority, now it is my moral duty to ensure that no black people are allowed to occupy any management positions regardless of their relationship to me and my so called morality.

That makes sense. It so happens that your hypothetical moral position would be considered warped by most people these days, i.e., it is racist, but your "moral duty" follows from your moral principles.

Originally Posted by MK27

As many people have observed, morality has no value in a completely relativistic universe, which is what you are suggesting -- that individuals can just make up or adopt whatever they want and defend that as "their morality".

Just because you can adopt whatever moral compass and principles you want does not mean that society has to accept them.

**MK27** · 01-26-2010

Originally Posted by laserlight

That is not true, at least to the extent that the religion in question does not adhere to its moral position merely because it is traditional, but also because of its theological development.

Your theology is still just an aspect of your tradition. We live in a secular society (thankfully), for this very reason: people around the world traditionally use theology to justify the absolute most heinous crimes imaginable. As I've already said, theology and religion are intended to constrain and manipulate the moral sense -- they are not its foundation.

Thread: Catholic homosexuals

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Similar Threads

The pope

Religion