www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Gay Marriage

...You knew it'd come up sooner or later!

So, I'm having trouble getting my head around it. First of all I want to say that I fully consent to the infallible teaching that marriage, in the eyes of God and the Church, is only between a man and a woman.

However, what I am confused about is why the Church doesn't think it should be legalized. Currently, I really can't say that I have a huge problem with gay people getting "married" by the State. Of course I think it is wrong, but I don't think that everything I view as wrong should be illegal.

I admit my logic is probably very inconsistent, since I am totally against legalized abortion, for example, largely on the grounds that it is "wrong." But I'm also against it on the grounds that it harms another human being without his consent (a very wrong thing). Gay "marriage" doesn't seem to hurt anybody, and I suppose one could argue it hurts the parties involved, but, I guess I sort of see it as their decision. I suppose I am just wary of too many moralistic restrictions by the State on consenting adults.

Additionally, I don't give a hoot and a holler about what the State says a marriage is or isn't; rather, I (as I suppose most Christians do) look to the Church to tell me what marriage is. And I really dislike the State playing Church or the morality police when something is between, as I said, consenting adults. Perhaps it is because I don't care what the State says that I think it is unfair to restrict it to a man and a woman.

As far as I can see, to me it does seem unfair for the State to tell two men or women they can't get married in the eyes of the government. But I am very, very open to hearing and understanding and even agreeing with opposing viewpoints, since it especially bothers me that I do not apparently see things the way the Church sees them. As far as I can tell, it is not an infallible dogma of the Church that a believer must be against gay "marriage" by the State, or that a believer must believe the State must define marriage in the same way as the Church in order to be saved.

Just as a warning, if an argument does not make sense to me, I will respond with what I am confused and/or disagree about. It is not meant to do anything other than to draw me more deeply toward the Truth that Christ and His Holy Church offers to all mankind.

So, have at it!

Alexis

P.S. I really need to be convinced that legalizing gay marriage will somehow amount to the destruction of society. And if that's the case, why shouldn't divorce be outlawed, too?

That's all difficult to ponder and I sometimes have trouble wrapping my head around it, as well. There is a huge difference between sacramental marriage and civil marriage. In fact, I think civil marriage has interfered with the authority of the church to be the sole agent of marriage, which I see as its right. It seems to me that in the past, this was the job of the church, not the state. As for these gay civil arrangements, I see them becoming more common in the future whether I happen to agree or not. I do believe it will spread to more areas, or at least it seems that way to me. But it seems a limiter on this will be the number of gay people who could become married. I don't know figures, but isn't the total gay population in this country a small minority? If so, then it seems that would be the maximum number of marriages possible.

ALEXIS:

First of all, allowing the break-up of marriage is not on a par with legalizing "gay" liasions and calling them "marriage." I think you're caught in the fuzzy logic that the proponents of this type of travesty have clouded the issue with.

Before we get too far into this type of issue, let's explore the issue of language. Language not only defines a thing or concept, but it shapes the way we think about it at the same time. Co-opting the word "marriage" to describe something is not within the definition of the word clouds the issue.

Marriage has been a foundation stone of every civilization taht the human race has ever seen or participated in. It has little to do with the idea that it must be part of the Church. The Church has sanctified what is a foundation stone of civilization as part of the process of lifting the human condition in the light of what Christ has done by His coming, but to begin with this and back-track to say that it is simply one group trying to impose their morality on those who do not support it is dishonest.

A man and a woman forming a family and procreating is at the heart of the survival of the human race. It's that simple. And the argument that we have too many people and that we have too little room is part of the eugenics movement in the Western world coming out of the early 20th century. BTW, part of thee arguments have given rise to such outcomes as the idea that a superior race should be built by eliminating those deemed inferior--see the Nazis, the Communists, Pol Pot, the Turks in relation to the Armenians, radical Muslems in relation to Christians, Jews, and others.

So the question must turn back to what we are to define civilization as being and how we are to support it. It is in the interest of any government to regulate the group it governs and their civilization. To do otherwise invites the type of anarchy that destroys civilization.

By comparison, we have plenty of laws prohibiting types of behavior that have been labeled as private morality but which preserve the same civilization. For example, we have laws against child sexual abuse. But there are organizations like the North American Man Boy Love Association that are tyring to promote the idea that these laws should all be eliminated for the same reason: that they are simply holdovers from an unenlightened era when everything was run by the Church.

IMHO, then, we need to get to the root of the question and define what it is we believe civilization to be and how we want it to function. No group can operate without boundaries. Boundaries are what define every group, whether it be a small one or a whole civilization.

BOB

Bob,

Thanks for your reply. I am not sure I see how legalizing gay marriage is operating without boundaries. Additionally, child sexual abuse does not occur between consenting adults - that is largely why it is illegal.


I may just be dense, but how is that relevant? I mean to say, I obviously agree with you on this. But does legalizing gay marriage somehow put procreation in jeopardy? If so, how? I am totally lost on your train of thought as to how the idea of there being too many people in the world is related to the subject matter at all. Are you thinking that if gay marriage is legalized, any/some/many/most people would then become gay, enter into gay marriages, and not procreate anymore?

I can appreciate what you say about clouding the issue with confusing words like "marriage," but to me this is not a reason to deny gay marriage. Has the word "divorce" been clouded since the government grants divorces to people who are, in the Church's eyes, clearly not divorced? Perhaps it has, but does this mean civil divorce should be outlawed?

Alexis

If the government were to legalize homosexual marriage, then who's to say it should not allow a man to marry his own sister, or a father his adult daughter, or a mother her son ? Once the floodgates of moral relativism are opened there's no limit to what can and will occur.

Lawrence,

Huh? Marrying one's immediate family member is probably both taboo and illegal since the probability of children being born with genetic diseases and disorders is greatly increased. This is obviously not the case with gay marriage, since people of the same sex cannot bear children together.

Lawrence, to you, is civil divorce moral relativism? If so (and why not, if not?), should it be illegal, since it "opens the floodgates?"

Alexis

I will tell you what is my personal problem with it:

1- Dear Bob said it correct when he presented the language issue and the definition of marriage. But this is only half the case, the reason why homosexual people want to have this legal statement, "marriage," is so they can have more legal rights: easier adoption of children, insurance issues and tax reliefs etc. Now are you willing to donate your hard earned christian money to support a "marriage institution for the gay cause" ? If so, they you are acting directly against your beliefs. Are you willing to put an orphan child, who was born outside of a homosexual marriage so to speak, to be raised in an unnatural environment where WRONG is accepted to be right? Are you willing to deprive a normal (christian or non christian) family who has not been blessed with children the opportunity to adopt a child because that homosexual couple is usually richer and more liberal or socially accepted? (I am sure that putting normal catholic parents with an income of 60K/year is not as attractive as a gay couple who earn 100K/Year in the eyes of that social worker who believes that religion and morals have no wight is an adoption)

2- The moment you legalize something which is wrong - it becomes no longer wrong/right - moral/immoral, it becomes simply legal - and legal has nothing to do with right or wrong. Some countries allow slavery by law, others legalized "light drugs" usage for the mass, and some legalized the marriage of 13 year-old girls. It has nothing to do with wrong or right anymore, people living there have no idea that what they are doing is wrong by the moral code of Christianity/humanity, they think it's legal then it must be ok.

3- Sodom and Amora, social acceptance of one wrong behavioral pattern makes it a correct pattern for the whole society - those who are left un-accepting will have the choice of leaving the place before it is burnt, or becoming a pole of salt.

4- The law is the mirror of society: Are you willing to wake up one morning and look in the mirror and say: "man we are one gay society" ?

As a Christian I want me and my children to live under the moral code of Christianity in my home land. if it's too much to ask for, the minimum I can ask for is not supporting immoral cases neither from my pocket nor from my personal dignity as a Christian.
I will HELP and pray for homosexual people just like any other, but I will not accept/adopt the way of homosexuality unless they become the majority and then I will gladly pack and leave asking God for mercy.

Gays have the same rights as everyone else.

They can marry, just not the same gender. Just like you and me.

The only way 'gay marriage' can work is for marriage to mean almost nothing. Part of the agenda, 20 years ago, in the Episcopal Church, was to extend the definition of 'marriage' to mean not only any two people, but any number of people.

It won't be long before someone wants to marry their pony, or dog or goldfish.

Marriage is marriage. Anything else...isn't.

Lawrence is correct it is just the tip of the iceberg that will come crashing down as civilization falls.
Murder, Euthanasia,Abortion all these are moral laws, we can go on and on, theft, etc. Shall we dispense with these laws too?
What about polygamy and bestiality?
There you go.
Stephanos I

Dear Alexis,
I agree with everything you say - but I think the term "marriage" is what gets most people's hackles up.I think what should be done is to make laws that recognize same-sex partnerships legal, and everything that entails.I knew two lesbians who were together for 20 years in a happy, loving relationship.When one of them fell ill, her nice Catholic family swooped in and took all her belongings and since they never signed any power of attorny papers, they took her off life support without reguarding the wishes of her partner and buried her in their family plot several states away.Then they sold the house because it was in her name and gave the partner nothing! No one could do a thing, it all happened so quickly and the partner had no legal standing so she lost everything.
It was one of the most heart-rending things I ever saw, in 1 month her whole life was turned upside down and she did not last much longer herself,less than a year later she died, and I think it was from sorrow.
People always counter that if we make this legal then what about this and this and this..... but we are talking basic human rights. It is easy for people to sit in judgement of this issue until one of their children "comes out " to them.Or if their 18 yr.old daughter comes home pregnant,or becomes addicted to drugs ect..
Sometimes no matter what we do or how careful we are stuff happens. Then its time to cowboy-up and REALLY show what we are.We don't have to approve of Rosie or Ellen or Clay in order to love them and pray that God gives them everything they need unto health and salvation. And to hear one more person say "God made Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve" or "Hate the sin but love the sinner" just makes me nuts!
There are a lot of things that may be wrong or that we don't like about the gay lifestyle, but their quest for basic human rights should not be one of them.

In Christ,
Nino

Dear Nino,

While I understand your point about not judging, and fully agree with you...because in these times we are living, most especially, one never knows if one's children--male or female-- shall chose to be gay, or to live with a boyfriend or girlfriend, or be promiscuous, or be non-believing, or get pregnant, etc., etc., etc.....and it doesn't matter how they have been brought up in many cases--our colleges, universities and culture sees to undermining Christian upbringing for the cultural standards of the day...that is why when we hear of abortions and gay lifestyles, truly we should say 'but for the grace of God go my children'...

(I am no longer shocked to find out from my children that so and so-- who wasn't a pretty child and was quite chubby from elementary school became a lesbian-- and that so and so from high school who was not homosexual in any way at that time-- went off to Princeton or Harvard and is now gay; that so and so who was so from church who was so religious, was also not homosexual by any standard, and who once wanted to become a married priest, but then lost his mother to cancer, went into depression, and avoided the priest's help-- became gay in college; and then there is also so and so who is a distant cousin who is in the arts and who is openly bisexual, etc., etc., etc....thanks to their Facebook accounts, the news comes in constantly and the list becomes longer each year)...It is *really* sad because for so many it is a choice to belong somewhere or a choice to experience a different sexual orientation. Society has made it so acceptable, and is actually considered 'cool' in the somewhat alternate universe that our young are immersed in, so what is to stop some of them? The Church speaks, the priests speak, the parents speak, but their voices are drowned out by the dominating voice of the evil one who speaks through all avenues of our culture and societies.

However, if legal rights are given to homosexual couples, that means that we condone their relationships as somehow being normal. If so, then why shouldn't heterosexual, cohabitating couples who prefer to not get married, or cannot get married for some reason, also not get legal rights? Why get 'married' at all then, for heaven's sake? And where does it stop?

I am compassionate and understanding, but personally I don't think that we should base our laws around sexual practices of people's bedrooms. In the Roman Empire, young adolescent boys were sexually abused by emperors and men who were also married. This was their 'right' too and it was acceptable. I think that we are tinkering very close to the same warped and confused mentality and deviance of the Roman Empire, something which many historians believe brought about its destruction...

May our Lord have mercy on us all.

Alice

ALEXIS:

I think you miss my point about the greater picture within which this question should be framed. Once we begin to take down the boundaries of the group, the civilization, where do we stop? When things that mark out how a group defines itself and takes away from the foundation on which it rests are taken away, everything becomes relative and without defense.

What you are up against is the idea that everything that a group does is arbitrary. And so it is. But civilization has defined itself as that simply because it defines boundaries for what is and what is not acceptable.

This issue is not something we can discuss in a vacuum, which is what the people behind this movement want to do. So aside from the Church and the morality that Christ has brought with it--the foundation of Western civilization--what these people are asking is for the group to redefine itself completely: taking something that has nevr been acceptable in any civilization and making it acceptable. BTW, if you study history, the civilizations that have moved in the direction of making heretofore unacceptable behavior acceptable have fallen to outside forces because they have become internally unable to sustain themselves.

Now for the argument that this is an issue of "basic human rights," I don't believe it holds water. Who has defined the "right to marriage" as a basic human right? Prior to this, I can find no argument that it is a basic human right since no society has prohibited marriage, but every society has defined and limited what it is.

BOB

Darn. I was hoping to find a description of some sort of quasi-liturgical form for the, ah, "solemnization" of such a combination. But anyway.

Divorce: sorry to those who are divorced and remarried, but the fact remains that this is contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the rule of the Catholic Church (a fourth marriage of any kind is rejected by the Orthodox Church). So the "solemnization" of such a combination is likewise regarded as sinful but not otherwise significant to the Church - it is rather a parody which does not result in much of anything.

Polygamy: I'm inclined to think that if one of the dissident Mormon groups which still maintain polygamy were to take the matter to the Supreme Court, they would win on the obvious ground that their freedom of religion is being denied them. It's not out of the question that the larger Mormon Church might take such a case, since they continue to believe in "plural marriage", while not practicing it because of the legal prohibition.

The mind boggles at the thought of how the government might regulate the practice of polygamy.

Watching whole progression, we are increasingly faced with the sad truth that there are now two kinds of marriages: the Christian kind, now available only in Church, and the secular kind, which has only a historical connection with Christian marriage. I doubt that even the Supreme Court would have the impudence to attempt to require the Church to perform "marriages" contrary to her own dogmas.

Then, of course, there is the Mohammedan concept and legislation regarding marriage, which is yet another discussion.

Fr. Serge

Eli, I can see your point on donating our tax dollars to something that we believe is immoral; that deserves some consideration, and is the first point in this thread that has held any water with me. At the same time, I still do have some doubts regarding that. Should we, then, as Catholics, work for the criminalization of divorce, since children from divorced families are being taught that "WRONG" is right? As Catholics, we don't believe in divorce, and yet we are paying taxes to a government where one can get "divorced" for almost anything. And we're paying taxes to a government which allows the murder of the unborn. Should we stop paying taxes? Should "divorced" persons also not be allowed to adopt? What about atheists, who are teaching their children what we believe to be lies, or Jews, or Muslims, or non-Catholic Christians? How far do you draw your logic in not allowing people who set what we believe to be wrong as "right" in their children's eyes, to adopt?

Again, to me, it seems inconsistent to allow divorce and not gay "marriage." As I said before, I really don't look for answers about what marriage is ANYWHERE but the Church. So the State could allow people to marry cows, for all I care.


In your view, if legal has nothing to do with right or wrong, then why not legalize gay "marriage"?

Your third and fourth points I do not think are worthy of a response. But thank you for providing some food for thought. I look forward to continuing the discussion.

Alexis

Maybe it's because I am getting old, but I no longer understand why homosexual marriage creates so much hysteria. Sure it's wrong, and so the church teaches. But so are many other things that society and Catholics are complacent about. Again, I think we are talking about a small minority, not huge numbers of people. Because the numbers are small, the damage done will not destroy society. Most of our society will still marry and divorce members of the opposite sex multiple times, just like they are currently doing. If we want to examine the ills of society, the fundamental problem, or so I believe, is sin. And there's not just one sin that's the problem. There are plenty to go around.