Could a Catholic bake a cake for a gay wedding?

  • Thread starter Thread starter theCardinalbird
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(“forced to”? !!!)

Of course not. Jesus didn’t “force” anyone to follow Him.
 
Yes: If a client asks an artist who offers their services to paint portraits of people to paint the client as Our Lady of Guadeloupe, should the artist be forced to do it, even if the artist does not want to?

Not Jesus forcing them to: the government, such as is in debate regarding the wedding cake scenario.
 
Why?

What if an artist doesn’t want to create tacky art? And getting the government involved is a waste of EVERYONE’S tax dollars, and not just those with bad taste.
 
sainteriksrose said:
Why?

What if an artist doesn’t want to create tacky art? And getting the government involved is a waste of EVERYONE’S tax dollars, and not just those with bad taste.
Click to expand...
I was proposing an alternative scenario to the wedding cake scenario that presents an artist who is being asked to do something that is against their conscience.

If one artist has to, so do all. Do we want that to be the case?

I don’t.
 
I agree.

People should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they participate in ANY activity.
 
See this is the problem. It isnt all about sex, but people afraid of SSM think it is.
 
What is “it” in 16 chars or more? And why do you interpret an objection to cooperating in evil as a “fear”?
 
Last edited:
“It” is the commitment of marriage between two people who love each other. Marriage is about love, not sex. At least it is to those of us who aren’t Catholic. So many Catholics are so preoccupied with the concept of sex, that they act like it is all marriage is about. When I go to a gay wedding, I don’t see anything different than what I see at a straight wedding. Two people who are making a commitment to love eachother. It is so simple, and yet religious folks will do their best to make it so complicated.

Regarding fear… Anyone who can take something as beautiful as love in a marriage (gay or straight) and consider it as evil does so out of fear. At least that is my philosophy. I am old and know a lot about human nature. We tend to fear things we don’t understand or that seem threatening to us.
 
Last edited:
NiceIsAsNiceDoes said:
Marriage is about love, not sex.
Click to expand...
Isnt it both? Isn’t marriage by its nature a sexual relationship? There are many types of love - we are in relationships of love with various other people. Our best friends, our parents, children, girlfriends. Doesn’t marriage - that special loving commitment to another - typically precede parenthood? Why would that be ? :roll_eyes: PS: there’s nothing particularly “Catholic” about that.

The proverbial “bakers” are not afraid of SSM, they just ask to be excused from cooperating with such events.
NiceIsAsNiceDoes said:
Two people who are making a commitment to love eachother. It is so simple, and yet religious folks will do their best to make it so complicated.
Click to expand...
Two men are always free to make that commitment. But given they are sexually incompatible, why is marriage - a sexual relationship - the means they choose? Do you really see some complexity here?
 
Last edited:
I find that business decisions and faith are a flexible thing.

Consider Hobby Lobby: didn’t want to pay for contraception for employees due to “religious” reasons. But, more than willing to import fair to poorly made stuff from China, a country which doesn’t exactly deal well with Christianity. Funny isn’t it. Paying for contraception costs money, and the owner of Hobby Lobby is against it for moral reasons. Buying junk from China is cheap and the junk can be sold at high prices yet no refusal to buy from the oppressive government of China on “moral” grounds.

That being said, I think the whole cake mess is an act of gamesmanship on both parties. Why not go to a baker who is gay friendly, would certainly make things a whole lot faster.
 
No. For most non-religious people, marriage is not about love and sex. It is purely about love. There are different kinds of love. Romantic love can lead to sex, babies, etc. It can also stand on its own. Love trumps all, so people like me don’t concern themselves with the physicalities of others’ relationships. In other words, I go to weddings (gay or straight) to celebrate the pure love of a couple. I don’t define it for them. I don’t concern myself with how they will choose to express that love to eachother during the course of their marriage. Obviously, they will have sex. They are usually attracted to eachother. That doesn’t make the marriage.
 
NiceIsAsNiceDoes said:
Obviously, they will have sex.
Click to expand...
Yes, because sex is particularly germane to the marriage relationship. The statement you have just made is a statement we make about the marriage relationship, for love alone does not make sex similarly germane.

The question now to be considered is how and why sex arises between 2 people, and how the very nature of sex implies it’s natural venue - man+woman. Think about the biology of it - can sex make any sense between, say, 2 men.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Sex makes perfect sense between two men. It is unitive. The parts fit together just fine, as they do for two woman. Maybe not the same parts you think of when envisioning heterosexual sex, but still it works just fine.
 
NiceIsAsNiceDoes said:
Yes. Sex makes perfect sense between two men. It is unitive. The parts fit together just fine…it works just fine.
Click to expand...
Unitive? I wonder what you think that word means, or why you would even think it matters. What “unit” can two men make by joining their bodies and exchanging gametes? How does it “work just fine”? Sorry to be explicit - but sex is also biological. It has an inherent nature. And 2 men seeking to join sexually is entirely incongruous with that nature.
 
Last edited:
Unitive, as in joining together. I realize the Catholic faith uses that word differently than the secular world. I am fine using it figuratively when considering it as a benefit to those who are in love with eachother when they please eachother, sexually. It can bring them closer together, , on an emotional level. That is unitive. Exchanging bodily fluid really doesn’t have much to do with the unity aspect of things. The emotional aspect of bringing sexual pleasure to another, while receiving the samer can be a very unitive, indeed. Or not at all. That is the beauty of it. It doesn’t have to be the same for everyone.
 
Last edited:
NiceIsAsNiceDoes said:
Unitive, as in joining together.
Click to expand...
Holding hands, interlocking fingers is unitive by that measure.
NiceIsAsNiceDoes said:
Exchanging bodily fluid really doesn’t have much to do with the unity aspect of things.
Click to expand...
In understanding the sexual act and its proper place, how do you so readily ignore it’s inherent nature? Does not the fact that the man emits gametes demonstrate unequivocally the proper venue for the act? Is it not clear that man+woman achieves a meaningful unity of body quite impossible for any other pairing?

I don’t doubt for a moment that 2 men may experience a mutual love and may desire mutual sexual pleasures. But examine more closely what is actually happening and the incongruity is plain.
 
Last edited:
If a Catholic has knowledge or reason to believe a wedding will be illicit or sacrilegious, they should not be contributing preparations for such ceremonies. This is regardless of deluded social/personal intentions others, society, or the participants may have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top