5 Reasons Catholics Shouldn't be Campaigning Against Same-Sex Marriage

[Paul89]

1. Marriage is not a Catholic, Christian, or Jewish invention
2. Biblical marriage involved multiple women with one man; not one man + one woman
3. Biblical marriage involved girls being married at very young ages; not one man + one woman
4. Biblical marriage involved paying men to take their daughters because women had such a low place in society. Are we going to fight to bring that back?
5. Should EVERYONE across the world conform to one religion’s beliefs? (ie: women would you want to wear head scarves to fit ideal Muslims views of a woman’s responsibilities?)

I find it humorous that people believe they understand what life was historically like and think that we should “protect” traditional marriage which is, in reality, a far far cry from what GOD ordained in the Bible.

Also, need I remind everyone here that the Catholic church’s crusades against those who disagreed with them has a body count higher than the Holocaust?

 

[Eastsideteacher]

Always, always always remember folks. Marriage is a civil institution that religion decided to get involved with, not the other way around.

 

[aemcpa]

The Church recognizes that marriage is an invention neither of the state nor of the Church, but is a natural institution ordained by God from the beginning with the purpose of bringing children into the world and uniting parents and children in a family unit that is the building block of any civilized society. That is what every form of marriage throughout history has had in common, that is why it is of benefit to the state and therefore worth the state’s time to ratify and promote, that is what merited the action of Christ in raising marriage to the dignity of a sacrament, and that is exactly what “same-sex marriage” does NOT do that makes it fundamentally different from marriage. And that defect of “same-sex marriage” is irredeemable, which is why it’s not worth the state’s time and money to ratify and promote. People can live in any arrangement they want, but two homosexuals living together doesn’t provide enough of a benefit to the state to warrant bestowing the benefits of marriage upon it. And of course, it is abominable from an objective moral standpoint, but that argument doesn’t even need to be made.

 

[OxygenMan]

The Church recognizes that marriage is an invention neither of the state nor of the Church, but is a natural institution ordained by God from the beginning with the purpose of bringing children into the world and uniting parents and children in a family unit that is the building block of any civilized society. That is what every form of marriage throughout history has had in common, that is why it is of benefit to the state and therefore worth the state’s time to ratify and promote, that is what merited the action of Christ in raising marriage to the dignity of a sacrament, and that is exactly what “same-sex marriage” does NOT do that makes it fundamentally different from marriage. And that defect of “same-sex marriage” is irredeemable, which is why it’s not worth the state’s time and money to ratify and promote. People can live in any arrangement they want, but two homosexuals living together doesn’t provide enough of a benefit to the state to warrant bestowing the benefits of marriage upon it. And of course, it is abominable from an objective moral standpoint, but that argument doesn’t even need to be made.

Please don’t bother with this thread. It’s just flamebaiting on the part of the OP.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

1. Marriage is not a Catholic, Christian, or Jewish invention
2. Biblical marriage involved multiple women with one man; not one man + one woman
3. Biblical marriage involved girls being married at very young ages; not one man + one woman
4. Biblical marriage involved paying men to take their daughters because women had such a low place in society. Are we going to fight to bring that back?
5. Should EVERYONE across the world conform to one religion’s beliefs? (ie: women would you want to wear head scarves to fit ideal Muslims views of a woman’s responsibilities?)

I find it humorous that people believe they understand what life was historically like and think that we should “protect” traditional marriage which is, in reality, a far far cry from what GOD ordained in the Bible.

Also, need I remind everyone here that the Catholic church’s crusades against those who disagreed with them has a body count higher than the Holocaust?

When you say crusades would you be referring to the defensive wars by that name fought against the Saracen and Ottoman Empires and their attempts at world domination?

 

[Paul89]

I think they’re five valid points

 

[acarlson]

I think this thread is just designed to incite a flame war.

 

[OxygenMan]

I think this thread is just designed to incite a flame war.

It is.

 

[Shiranui117]

Forget those 5, the one real reason is that most governments in the Western/Catholic world today are secular governments, which all theoretically hold to separation of church and state. So the attempt of the Catholic Church to work its beliefs into legislation amounts to a violation of freedom of religion for anyone who doesn’t share those beliefs.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

If you want the biblical roots of traditional marriage then start with 1 Corinthians chapter 7. There are better reasons not to campaign against gay “marriage” than misunderstanding the origin and nature of sacramental marriage.

 

[RobbyS]

1. Marriage is not a Catholic, Christian, or Jewish invention
2. Biblical marriage involved multiple women with one man; not one man + one woman
3. Biblical marriage involved girls being married at very young ages; not one man + one woman
4. Biblical marriage involved paying men to take their daughters because women had such a low place in society. Are we going to fight to bring that back?
5. Should EVERYONE across the world conform to one religion’s beliefs? (ie: women would you want to wear head scarves to fit ideal Muslims views of a woman’s responsibilities?)

I find it humorous that people believe they understand what life was historically like and think that we should “protect” traditional marriage which is, in reality, a far far cry from what GOD ordained in the Bible.

Also, need I remind everyone here that the Catholic church’s crusades against those who disagreed with them has a body count higher than the Holocaust?

I’ll start with the last statement, which is factually wrong. Where did you get such an idea from? A Ridley Scott movie?

 

[Monkey1976]

1. Marriage is not a Catholic, Christian, or Jewish invention

Agreed. Marriage between partners of the opposite sex predates both Church and governments.

1. Biblical marriage involved multiple women with one man; not one man + one woman

How many wives did St. Adam have? St. Noah? St. Lot? St. Joseph? St. Peter? Answer in all cases: one. Even leaving aside marriages recorded in Holy Scripture, how many ancient societies recognized marriage between two people of the same sex?

1. Biblical marriage involved girls being married at very young ages; not one man + one woman

People also died at much younger ages. “Little-t” tradition has it that Our Blessed Mother was a girl between 13 and 15 when she gave her “Fiat” to the Lord and bore Our Savior.

1. Biblical marriage involved paying men to take their daughters because women had such a low place in society. Are we going to fight to bring that back?

Of course not. Now, can you show where God commanded that such be done?

1. Should EVERYONE across the world conform to one religion’s beliefs? (ie: women would you want to wear head scarves to fit ideal Muslims views of a woman’s responsibilities?)

Some purely secular arguments against gay “marriage”: tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

I find it humorous that people believe they understand what life was historically like and think that we should “protect” traditional marriage which is, in reality, a far far cry from what GOD ordained in the Bible.

What God ordained, both Old and New Testament:[BIBLEDRB]Gen 2:24[/BIBLEDRB][BIBLEDRB]Matt 19:5[/BIBLEDRB]

Also, need I remind everyone here that the Catholic church’s crusades against those who disagreed with them has a body count higher than the Holocaust?

Try reading some history instead of anti-Catholic propaganda.

Even leaving aside what the Church (whose Faith you claim to profess) teaches, can you list a single society from the dawn of mankind until 2000 that recognized gay “marriage” as something equivalent and identical to marriage between the two complimentary sexes?

 

[LilyM]

Girls were indeed married at younger ages than is common now - as were boys I might add. And? Does our current later average first age of marriage make modern marriages any more likely to succeed or endure than theirs did? Far from it if the divorce rate is anything to go by.

 

[RobbyS]

Forget those 5, the one real reason is that most governments in the Western/Catholic world today are secular governments, which all theoretically hold to separation of church and state. So the attempt of the Catholic Church to work its beliefs into legislation amounts to a violation of freedom of religion for anyone who doesn’t share those beliefs.

That works both ways, does it not? Any attempt to purge the law of Christian moral concepts is a violation of neutrality. It is driven by ideology, and more to the point by the sense of moral superiority of an intellectual elite. Having driven the clerics from power, it has become a new clerisy with its own desire to dominate those who disagree. They declare all argument at an end and shout down all who try to continue it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

1. Marriage is not a Catholic, Christian, or Jewish invention
2. Biblical marriage involved multiple women with one man; not one man + one woman
3. Biblical marriage involved girls being married at very young ages; not one man + one woman
4. Biblical marriage involved paying men to take their daughters because women had such a low place in society. Are we going to fight to bring that back?
5. Should EVERYONE across the world conform to one religion’s beliefs? (ie: women would you want to wear head scarves to fit ideal Muslims views of a woman’s responsibilities?)

I find it humorous that people believe they understand what life was historically like and think that we should “protect” traditional marriage which is, in reality, a far far cry from what GOD ordained in the Bible.

Also, need I remind everyone here that the Catholic church’s crusades against those who disagreed with them has a body count higher than the Holocaust?

It is never worth arguing with someone who thinks “facts” are nothing more than fanciful little bits of offal that can be dug up out of the dankest and narrowest recesses of one’s small minded pettiness and spouts them with complete disregard for whether they even bear a vague resemblance to reality.

Pardon my lack of interest, but in which pit of nonsense, precisely, do you mine for your little factoid gems?

 

[George_Stegmeir]

1. Marriage is not a Catholic, Christian, or Jewish invention
2. Biblical marriage involved multiple women with one man; not one man + one woman
3. Biblical marriage involved girls being married at very young ages; not one man + one woman
4. Biblical marriage involved paying men to take their daughters because women had such a low place in society. Are we going to fight to bring that back?
5. Should EVERYONE across the world conform to one religion’s beliefs? (ie: women would you want to wear head scarves to fit ideal Muslims views of a woman’s responsibilities?)

I find it humorous that people believe they understand what life was historically like and think that we should “protect” traditional marriage which is, in reality, a far far cry from what GOD ordained in the Bible.

Also, need I remind everyone here that the Catholic church’s crusades against those who disagreed with them has a body count higher than the Holocaust?

I am tempted to reply with an insult I learned in the US Navy, but that would not only be uncharitable, but would end up with me being banned for life from this site! Instead, I will say that you are writing from a standpoint of abject ignorence. You really need to study something about the Catholic Church as well as a little world history. But that isn’t your reason for posting on this site, you just have to get your predjudices out of your system.

 

[Auntie_A]

I’ll start with the last statement, which is factually wrong. Where did you get such an idea from? A Ridley Scott movie?

This is a good question, not rhetorical. Ridley Scott, Dan Brown, Marie Claire magazine, …Many different writers/artists have been part of a movement to “create your own mythology”. My own college experience and arts education included that agenda: “If you don’t like history, then re-write it.” “We are in an era where we can change whatever we want, just by repeating it enough.” “Facts aren’t important, just write a good story.”

OP: please go back and check those “5 Reasons” again…

 

[Paul89]

Crusades alone did not have a death toll as high as the Holocaust, 3 million vs 4+ million, but when you add in the death toll from Catholic Spaniards conquering the Americas… you go way past.

And really we need to accept that society cannot be restrained by one religious group’s beliefs. We as Catholics do not need to ordain SS marriages, but we cannot stand in the way of non-Catholics.

If the Bible said black people were inferior would it be bigotry to repeat that belief? Of course. And just because the Bible condoned slavery it does not mean that we as a modern society can condone it.

 

[LilyM]

Crusades alone did not have a death toll as high as the Holocaust, 3 million vs 4+ million, but when you add in the death toll from Catholic Spaniards conquering the Americas… you go way past.

And really we need to accept that society cannot be restrained by one religious group’s beliefs. We as Catholics do not need to ordain SS marriages, but we cannot stand in the way of non-Catholics.

If the Bible said black people were inferior would it be bigotry to repeat that belief? Of course. And just because the Bible condoned slavery it does not mean that we as a modern society can condone it.

You’re not seriously trying to tell us that the Crusaders, who had tiny poorly-supplied armies who had swords and not much else, and a policy (bar a few exceptional and hashly condemned breaches) of not killing civilians, or at least not women and children, achieved as much slaughter as the Nazis with their huge numbers of armed personnel, machine guns, tanks, bombs, concentration camps, gas chambers that ran 24/7 for years, plus an avowed policy of utter and complete exermination of a whole race of unarmed men, women and children?

Pull the other one, it plays Jingle Bells.

 

[Paul89]

You’re not seriously trying to tell us that the Crusaders, who had tiny poorly-supplied armies who had swords and not much else, and a policy (bar a few exceptional and hashly condemned breaches) of not killing civilians, or at least not women and children, achieved as much slaughter as the Nazis with their huge numbers of armed personnel, machine guns, tanks, bombs, concentration camps, gas chambers that ran 24/7 for years, plus an avowed policy of utter and complete exermination of a whole race of unarmed men, women and children?

Pull the other one, it plays Jingle Bells.

Well, the Nazi reign in Europe only lasted a few years. The Catholic Church has enjoyed thousands of years into forcing people into its beliefs. Just remembered the inquisitions.

Quite a nice place for a group, deciding how the world needs to act and what is/isn’t evil.