‘A Catholic case for same-sex marriage’

[TheKingdomOfGod]

Again, you miss the point: The government does not carry about their private emotions. It cares about public purposes, because that is the purpose of government.

Well here in the UK we are on the way to legalising same sex marriage so your argument does not apply everywhere.

 

[Elizabeth502]

It’s not changing the Church’s definition, it’s changing the civil definition.

Great. You finally admitted it. It’s not up to a minority to change the definition for the majority.

 

[TheKingdomOfGod]

Great. You finally admitted it. It’s not up to a minority to change the definition for the majority.

What did I admit exactly?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well here in the UK we are on the way to legalising same sex marriage so your argument does not apply everywhere.

Some governments are less enlightened than other governments.

 

[TheKingdomOfGod]

Some governments are less enlightened than other governments.

Indeed, *some * governments are less enlightened than others. .

 

[Elizabeth502]

What did I admit exactly?

That it’s an attempt by the minority, through pressure, to change the civil defintion for the majority. Do you not read your own posts and follow your own train of thought?

 

[TheKingdomOfGod]

**That it’s an attempt by the minority, through pressure, to change the civil defintion for the majority. **

It’s not-at least over here. I can’t speak for the US.

Do you not read your own posts and follow your own train of thought?

Yes, but I mis-understood what you said.

 

[AlienAngel]

TheKingdomOfGod, brother/sister, I suggest you repent. Homosexuality is obviously wrong/sinful. If you try to persuade others to your sinful ways, it’s even worse than committing the sin itself. Your trying to get others to follow on your disobedient path. Shame on you. Get off this forum & get to confession with a repentant heart. Your on the path to Hell. No one wants that for eternity. Don’t be arrogant or ignorant, be humble & repent.

TheKingdomOfGod:

 

[TheKingdomOfGod]

TheKingdomOfGod, brother/sister, I suggest you repent. Homosexuality is obviously wrong/sinful. If you try to persuade others to your sinful ways, it’s even worse than committing the sin itself. Your trying to get others to follow on your disobedient path. Shame on you. Get off this forum & get to confession with a repentant heart. Your on the path to Hell. No one wants that for eternity. Don’t be arrogant or ignorant, be humble & repent.

Thank you for your post. Your suggestion has been noted.

 

[RevDon]

I don’t think that practicing homosexuals feel comfortable with what they are doing deep down inside. They know it’s wrong but for psychological reasons usually steeped in some sort of sexual abuse, they continue to act out the very sin that they detest.

In college (an all-male Catholic college), I was awakened one night by the sobbing of my roommate, a brilliant and talented young man. I turned on the light and asked him, “What’s wrong?” He answered, “I’m gay and I don’t want to be.”
This was the first time I had even heard about “being gay” (my sexual education was incredibly naive). But this young man eas a friend and clearly in distress, so I listened as he described all the suffering he had endured through high school. He had not been abused as a child. He had spent years with psychologists in the attempt to be “cured,” because he had felt the full impact of society’s judgment on him, and he felt unworthy of anyone’s love.

But here he was, looking ahead to what life offered him. The church wanted him to remain celibate, foregoing a relationship that promised exclusivity and intimacy, a partner who could offer comfort and to whom he would be held accountable. The alternative would be to act as if he were not gay, find some woman and pretend to be attracted to her so they could marry. As he contemplated that option, he sobbed some more because he was sure this would be a miserable existence based on a lie.

He was not concentrating on sexual fulfillment, even at that age. He was concerned about being able to live in a community of life and love with someone who could know him as he knew himself and love him for who he was.

He died a few years after graduation, never having married or established a permanent relationship. His death was not AIDS- related, but could have been hastened by his unhappiness.

 

[Monkey1976]

Of course. But that’s not why individuals choose to marry.

Two individuals are free to call their relationship whatever they want between the two of them. The problem arises when those individuals, calling their relationship “marriage”, try to claim the privileges attached to that institution and force their definition on others. No matter how much noise supporters of calling a square a circle make, a square is not and can never be a circle.

Marriage is something that only happens between male and female. Every society has accepted this, even those who aggressively promoted Homosexual behavior (I’m looking at you, ancient Sparta).

In the early “Gay Rights” movement, the cry was for government to stay out of the bedroom, and they rejected the idea of government-regulated gay “marriages”. Now, all of a sudden, they want the government IN the bedroom, telling them that what they’re doing is a good thing. You’ve heard the phrase, “They doth protest too much”, right? God wrote the natural law on the hearts of all mankind. In their heart, Gay activists know that what they are doing is wrong, and instead of listening to the voice of their heart, they shout as loudly as they can, and demand others join in the shouting, to try and drown out that still, small voice that is the Voice of God.

I’ll admit - in the early days of “Gay Rights” - there was some good in their message: Namely, that people should not be persecuted for how they feel. Violence against homosexuals is a terrible thing, and anti-sodomy laws were often abused. For the vast majority of professions, there is no reason to exclude someone with same-sex attraction. But the fact remains that Scripture and Tradition have been consistent in condemning homosexual acts as a sin for the past 4000 or so years. You have said that these condemnations are a “mistake”. If a mistake can be made in something like this - something that is repeated multiple times with no change - how can one trust anything in Scripture? How can one trust its testimony that Jesus is God? How can one even trust its testimony to the existence of God? If I have a history book that includes something patently false, the entire book is thrown into question and it is no longer an authoritative source, requiring other sources to back up everything it says.

 

[RevDon]

what you say still does not define the difference between the relationship I have with my wife and the relationship I have with my children. You still do not have a full understanding of marriage. If you did, you would understand why same sex unions are not marriage.

Would you be willing to expand on the description of the relationship you have with your wife and children that markd a significant difference from what a same-sex couple might have?

I think that could add a lot to this discussion.

 

[edwest2]

Would you be willing to expand on the description of the relationship you have with your wife and children that markd a significant difference from what a same-sex couple might have?

I think that could add a lot to this discussion.

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Iron_Donkey]

In college (an all-male Catholic college), I was awakened one night by the sobbing of my roommate, a brilliant and talented young man. I turned on the light and asked him, “What’s wrong?” He answered, “I’m gay and I don’t want to be.”
This was the first time I had even heard about “being gay” (my sexual education was incredibly naive). But this young man eas a friend and clearly in distress, so I listened as he described all the suffering he had endured through high school. He had not been abused as a child. He had spent years with psychologists in the attempt to be “cured,” because he had felt the full impact of society’s judgment on him, and he felt unworthy of anyone’s love.

But here he was, looking ahead to what life offered him. The church wanted him to remain celibate, foregoing a relationship that promised exclusivity and intimacy, a partner who could offer comfort and to whom he would be held accountable. The alternative would be to act as if he were not gay, find some woman and pretend to be attracted to her so they could marry. As he contemplated that option, he sobbed some more because he was sure this would be a miserable existence based on a lie.

He was not concentrating on sexual fulfillment, even at that age. He was concerned about being able to live in a community of life and love with someone who could know him as he knew himself and love him for who he was.

He died a few years after graduation, never having married or established a permanent relationship. His death was not AIDS- related, but could have been hastened by his unhappiness.

This is of course a sad thing, and your friend will be in my prayers, but it fails to address the question at hand which is “are homosexual activities permissible?” (which is a precursor to “is homosexual marriage a possible thing?”)

Note that absolutely no one said that people attracted to other members of the same sex are unworthy of love. Nor did we deny that society can make people feel that way. But the solution to that problem is to tell them (and society) the truth: that they are still children of God who are loved beyond their imagining already, that many humans do love them (did you not sit up and listen and talk with him while he was in distress?) and that many others will also as they come to know them. The solution is not to lie to them and to tell them that they can morally do what they cannot morally do.

You say that “he was concerned about being able to live in a community of life and love with someone who could know him as he knew himself and love him for who he was [and not about sex],” - but we call those people who know us and love us for who we are “good friends.” No one has told homosexuals that they cannot have good friends. Now, you’re spouse is supposed to be a good friend, but is more than that, and there is no requirement that we attempt to marry everyone who loves us for who we are. I have no desire to marry my brothers or parents, for example, nor the friends I have had since before high school and meet up with every time we’re in the same town.

Living a lie is of course unacceptable - while a person with same sex attraction can of course marry a person of the opposite sex, this should not be done dishonestly - but it is absolutely a mistake to assume that celibacy means a life devoid of human contact and understanding.

 

[TheKingdomOfGod]

Two individuals are free to call their relationship whatever they want between the two of them. The problem arises when those individuals, calling their relationship “marriage”, try to claim the privileges attached to that institution and force their definition on others. No matter how much noise supporters of calling a square a circle make, a square is not and can never be a circle.

Indeed a square can’t be a circle.

Marriage is something that only happens between male and female.

Well I can name 11 countries and a handful of US states plus other national jurisdictions which disagree. Plus many more, including my own nation, who are on their way to legalise same sex marriage.

Every society has accepted this, even those who aggressively promoted Homosexual behavior (I’m looking at you, ancient Sparta).

Not most society, especially not those above.

**In the early “Gay Rights” movement, the cry was for government to stay out of the bedroom, and they rejected the idea of government-regulated gay “marriages”. Now, all of a sudden, they want the government IN the bedroom, telling them that what they’re doing is a good thing. You’ve heard the phrase, “They doth protest too much”, right? **

Yes.

God wrote the natural law on the hearts of all mankind. In their heart, Gay activists know that what they are doing is wrong, and instead of listening to the voice of their heart, they shout as loudly as they can, and demand others join in the shouting, to try and drown out that still, small voice that is the Voice of God.

In their hearts gay people know there is nothing wrong with who they are and the way in which they were born.

**I’ll admit - in the early days of “Gay Rights” - there was some good in their message: Namely, that people should not be persecuted for how they feel. Violence against homosexuals is a terrible thing, and anti-sodomy laws were often abused. For the vast majority of professions, there is no reason to exclude someone with same-sex attraction. **

Well I can’t name a single profession where there would be a reason to exclude someone who is gay.

**But the fact remains that Scripture and Tradition have been consistent in condemning homosexual acts as a sin for the past 4000 or so years. You have said that these condemnations are a “mistake”. **

Yes, or the fact we have moved on since then and some Biblical passages are completely wrong and outdated.

If a mistake can be made in something like this - something that is repeated multiple times with no change - how can one trust anything in Scripture? How can one trust its testimony that Jesus is God? How can one even trust its testimony to the existence of God? If I have a history book that includes something patently false, the entire book is thrown into question and it is no longer an authoritative source, requiring other sources to back up everything it says.

Because I know it in my heart, just as you and most of the people on this thread know.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Yes, or the fact we have moved on since then and some Biblical passages are completely wrong and outdated.

If a mistake can be made in something like this - something that is repeated multiple times with no change - how can one trust anything in Scripture? How can one trust its testimony that Jesus is God? How can one even trust its testimony to the existence of God? If I have a history book that includes something patently false, the entire book is thrown into question and it is no longer an authoritative source, requiring other sources to back up everything it says.

You know that the word of God, the God breathed scriptures upon which much of Christianity rests, and all of which “is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” the very words communicated by God to Man, the wisdom of the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Himself, is wrong incorrect and outdated because it feels like it?

As fallen creatures, the whole thing about what we believe to be written on our hearts is that it’s supposed to be a starting point that is corrected by and does not correct what reason and revelation tell us, with scripture, whether we like it or not, doing a large part of the correcting.

We don’t just ignore what God says because in our hearts we don’t think it feels right. Our hearts are fallen too. Not completely, of course. But if they weren’t at least somewhat imperfect then a) people wouldn’t disagree about moral issues “in their hearts” and b) God would not have had to put so much effort into teaching us how to behave.

 

[Stephen168]

Historically marriage is that human condition where children are created and raised by their parents until adulthood. It predates the state and the Church. In fact the state is very new to the marriage game. So new I would question its right to change the historic definition. The Church accepts that historic definition because it is by God’s design.

It’s not changing the Church’s definition, it’s changing the civil definition.

I’m not sure what or who your pronoun refers to but it does seem a little schizophrenic. It is like you are saying you want to change the civil definition of woman, but not the Church’s definition of woman; very strange.

 

[RevDon]

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html

Peace,
Ed

Thank you, Ed.
I believe that the two examples offered are a good example of what marriage isn’t.
I’ve had to deal with some of these screwy ideas with heterosexuals seeking to be “married” too.
I believe that these give a good agenda for what any legalization of gay marriage and application of heterosexual marriage must address.
The people in these links don’t get it, and their example should not be allowed to stand for what our society calls marriage

 

[Stephen168]

Indeed marriage is more than just love, it is a lifelong commitment and bond. That’s why I believe it should be open to same sex couples.

what you say still does not define the difference between the relationship I have with my wife and the relationship I have with my children. You still do not have a full understanding of marriage. If you did, you would understand why same sex unions are not marriage.

Would you be willing to expand on the description of the relationship you have with your wife and children that markd a significant difference from what a same-sex couple might have?

I think that could add a lot to this discussion.

I’m not sure what you are asking

 

[RevDon]

This is of course a sad thing, and your friend will be in my prayers, but it fails to address the question at hand which is “are homosexual activities permissible?” (which is a precursor to “is homosexual marriage a possible thing?”)

Note that absolutely no one said that people attracted to other members of the same sex are unworthy of love. Nor did we deny that society can make people feel that way. But the solution to that problem is to tell them (and society) the truth: that they are still children of God who are loved beyond their imagining already, that many humans do love them (did you not sit up and listen and talk with him while he was in distress?) and that many others will also as they come to know them. The solution is not to lie to them and to tell them that they can morally do what they cannot morally do.

You say that “he was concerned about being able to live in a community of life and love with someone who could know him as he knew himself and love him for who he was [and not about sex],” - but we call those people who know us and love us for who we are “good friends.” No one has told homosexuals that they cannot have good friends. Now, you’re spouse is supposed to be a good friend, but is more than that, and there is no requirement that we attempt to marry everyone who loves us for who we are. I have no desire to marry my brothers or parents, for example, nor the friends I have had since before high school and meet up with every time we’re in the same town.

Living a lie is of course unacceptable - while a person with same sex attraction can of course marry a person of the opposite sex, this should not be done dishonestly - but it is absolutely a mistake to assume that celibacy means a life devoid of human contact and understanding.

Thank you for your compassion.
I suspect there is a big qualitative difference between friend and spouse that my roommate sensed even in his youth.
Society can be incredibly cruel and as you have noted.
I also appreciate that you have dealt with this issue on a spiritual basis. That’s often overlooked.
If I may venture a personal comment, I know that in many ways I am a happier, healthier, and especially holier person as a result of my life with my wife. I don’t think a friendship could have done that for me.