h1

D.C. Catholic Church Backs Down

12.18.09

The Washington, D.C. Archdiocese has its bluff called.

When will opponents to same sex marriage finally realize that it affects no one other than those couples who wish to bind their love just like some heterosexuals choose to do?  It doesn’t impede upon religion or cause some slippery slope into depraved pedophilia or other nonsense that some will have you believe.

It’s about love and equality.  That’s all.  Plain and simple.

Advertisements

4 comments

  1. When will people start realizing that marriage is a covenant bond between a man and a woman and God? When will people stop trying to force society’s ideas on the Catholic Church? Marriage was, is, and always will be a religious bond. What secular society does is its own business. What the Archdiocese of Washington is says is that it’s not people’s fault what the state makes legal, and it will not withhold aid to people in need, which is another function of the Church.


    • You are right: secular society can do its own business independent of the Catholic Church.

      That’s the separation of church and state. That’s why we live in a free society, not a theocracy. That’s why you can follow whichever holy book you wish and I can choose to follow or not to follow whichever one I wish. There is a difference between a religiously ordained marriages and civil marriages. In your belief system, marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s fine. But the err of your argument is that the definitions within your personal set of beliefs extends out to every, single American citizen.

      Plain and simple: it does not.

      Legalizing same sex marriage changes nothing for the religious laws within the Catholic Church. None. Nothing. Your definition of marriage remains completely in tact.

      To have withdrawn aid to people in need would’ve gone against the Catholic Church’s identity way more than anything a law legalizing same sex marriage does. And the Church realizes this. To punish the poor and needy because of something that truly doesn’t affect the Catholic Church in any way would’ve been irresponsible and petty. I’m glad the Church reversed their course.


  2. Hi Ryan, I’m also glad the Church has reversed its descision. However, lets look at your argument for the definition of marriage, which is pretty convincing. I’d like to draw an analogy from the definition of mother and father. Can two men who adopt decide that one of them is to be a mother? If not, why not? If so, then you would be consistent. You see, a marriage is between a man and a woman and what is between two men or two women is definitionally different, just as mothers are different than fathers and vice versa.

    There are other analogies that come to mind that may serve better but I hope this is sufficient, if not I hope to disagree in peace :)

    God Bless


    • Richard, thanks for your comment and I always hope to agree or disagree in peace!

      A problem I have with your analogy is in needing to equate being married and being parents. While the two can overlap, they are mutually independent of each other: a man and woman can be married yet not be parents and a man and woman can be parents without being married. Your analogy requires the definition of marriage to include the stipulation that the two being wed are to be/become parents, but that’s not the case, especially not in the secular realm, which is where this definition and discussion is taking place. It’s simply the relationship of two consenting adults being recognized by the government.

      Also, another issue with your analogy is in the implication that if two men have a child that one of them must assume the role of the mother or the female. And vice versa for two married women. The reality is that neither sex can replace the other; a child growing up with two mothers will have two mothers. I know it’s normal for heterosexuals to look at a homosexual relationship through the prism of our own experience. We assume that one person will have to fill the role of the other gender, but I really don’t think that’s how it works. I can see how someone would argue that it’s detrimental for a child to grow up without a balance of male and female influence that comes from a mother and father in the household, but that line of reasoning doesn’t take into consideration the reality that while there may be two men raising one child, it doesn’t mean that both men teach the same way, with the same exact lessons, with the same emotional language. It’s rudimentary to say that all men raise children a certain way and all women raise children a different certain way and that having two of the same sex rearing a child would be so lopsided to one gender over the other.

      Again, I realize the religious definition is certainly different than this and that’s fine. It’s not what the movement for marriage equality is about. The focus is on secular marriage, the kind recognized by the government, not the kind recognized by a church.



Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: