Does a Devout Catholic Support Gay Marriage?

[JimG]

While homosexual activity has existed in all societies, I can think of no society in recorded history which ever granted the status of marriage to the activity.

 

[Lisa_N]

JimG:

While homosexual activity has existed in all societies, I can think of no society in recorded history which ever granted the status of marriage to the activity.

A very important point. There have been some societies where homosexual activity was considered within the realm of normal. The term ‘Greek style’ didn’t come out of thin air, there was a culture of homosexual activities in some early Greek societies. However there was also marriage and the same sex friendships were never granted that status.

Unfortunately there are some European countries that do grant SSM privileges but their marriage rate overall has plummeted.

Lisa N

 

[Penny_Plain]

Lisa N:

Absolutely and why I am so against normalizing homsexual partnerships by giving them the same legal status as traditional marriage. I breed horses and it frankly apalls me how SIMILARLY homosexuals procure children. Livestock breeders have artificial insemination, egg harvesting, embryo transfer, frozen semen, nurse mares, etc. OK we can deal with this sort of “procurement” for livestock but it bothers me to descend to this level to create a human being. I am still disgusted by a pictorial in New Yorker that included two homosexual men and “their” daughter. The child has no mother. Oh she’s got an egg donor like one of my foals who might have been conceived in a petri dish, but she has no mommy. She might even have a sperm donor if neither of the men participated in her biological conception. How do children deal with the knowledge that they were “bred” like an animal? It’s incredibly disturbing to me.

Maybe she was adopted?

Every single homosexual couple I know that has children has adopted them.

 

[Lisa_N]

Penny Plain:

Maybe she was adopted?

Every single homosexual couple I know that has children has adopted them.

Regardless of the procurement method, a SS couple denies the child either a mother or a father and I frankly think that is quite selfish.

Lisa N

 

[4_marks]

I support my brother and his partner who “wed” this past summer. Neither I or they call their union a marriage, though it is officially recognized as such by the Massachusetts civil authorities.

My brother and his partner are very happy together. My brother had been previously married (in the Catholic Church) to a woman. She had sought and obtained an annulment through a priest relative who was influential in obtaining one. though my brother protested this. His partner still considers himself a Catholic, though neither one is practicing.

The Church does not support “Gay marriage.” I, as an individual Catholic, do support my brother and his partner in their commitment to and in their union with one another.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Lisa N:

Regardless of the procurement method, a SS couple denies the child either a mother or a father and I frankly think that is quite selfish.

Really? What is that child’s alternative? You’re assuming that heterosexual couples are lining up to fight over adoptable childen and, except for those selfish homosexuals, every one of those children would have a home with a heterosexual couple.

That’s simply not so.

 

[Brad]

Steve Andersen:

AFAIK the Church says it is a sin to marry someone of the same sex while it is not a sin to think that two people of the same sex could be married.

Despite what the Protestants may say the Church isn’t some Orwellian place where “thought crime” is a sin

As Catholics, we are called to strong, thorough, unambiguous, and complete opposition to legalization of homosexual unions. Publically voicing your support for legaliation of homosexaul unions is in opposition to the teaching of the Church:

“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection”.

From CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[Lisa_N]

Penny Plain:

Really? What is that child’s alternative? You’re assuming that heterosexual couples are lining up to fight over adoptable childen and, except for those selfish homosexuals, every one of those children would have a home with a heterosexual couple.

That’s simply not so.

Look you are simply proposing a totally hypothetical situation. I have a friend who is an adoption counsellor for “hard to place” children. This includes children born with SERIOUS medical issues, addicted to drugs, abused, you name it, these kids are facing a tough challenge. She said there is a long waiting list for any child and they only adopt to two parent, heterosexual couples.

I know many couples who are spending tens of thousands to adopt from overseas because quite frankly with abortion, there are very very few children in this country available for adoption. When was the last time you looked in the paper and saw “Free to good home” with respect to a child?

You are acting like there are so many kids for adoption that homosexuals are “better than nothing” as if their only option were to be tossed to the gutter. What a horrible attitude. The adoption issue is a major reason I am against homosexual marriage because a homosexual couple would be treated as equivalent in the case of an adoption and I do not think it is an equivalent situation, particularly for a medically or emotionally fragile child.

Lisa N

 

[space_ghost]

i think a devout Catholic would not “SUPPORT” sin in general, but would be the last to point to the splinter in someone else’s eye

 

[Brad]

Steve Andersen:

Well…Jesus DID say don’t cast the first stone and that we will be judged as we judge others.

Didn’t He?

Not in the way that you are implying, no.
Steve Andersen:

The Catholic Church is a big tent organization

With almost a billion members there is probably quite a bit of difference of opinion across it.

In issues of faith and morals, there is not supposed to be. Jesus said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life” and that whomever abides in His Word should know the Truth and would be set free. He did not say “Whoever loves me, no matter what he believes about me will know the truth because truth is whatever you want it to be and you will be set free.”
Steve Andersen:

Even someone who is devote can have legitimate questions over certain points. that doesn’t make them bad, questioning is the begining of faith.

Questioning to understand Church teachings increases faith. Questioning to dispute Church teachings is dissent.
Steve Andersen:

Being Catholic doesn’t mean simply towing the line…it wouldn’t be much of a faith then would it?

Sure it would. Christ asked for obedience to the extent that He was obedient to the Father - dying on the cross is pretty obedient. I’d say He was being faithful
Steve Andersen:

Personally I think marriage is a great thing and if two people want to do it more power too them but that is just me

You are right. That is just you but it is not the position of the Church.
Steve Andersen:

If the Church doesn’t want to do it that is fine however the civil government is in a slightly different position.

It sure is and Catholics that oppose homosexual “marriage” per the Congregation for the Doctrin of the Faith, should actively voice such opposition as member of government (i.e. "We the People)

 

[Brad]

space ghost:

i think a devout Catholic would not “SUPPORT” sin in general, but would be the last to point to the splinter in someone else’s eye

Opposition to changing the definition of marriage is not pointing to splinters in the eye - it is preventing splinters from going into the eye.

 

[Brad]

Asking:

Didnt Jesus teach separation of church and state?

We should tell them that homosexual acts are sinful, and teach them the gospel, but if they dont listen then let them get state-married if they wish.

I think Luther said once more or less, everyone has the right to choose in which way they will go to hell.

The early christian were a minority in a pagan empire with losts of immoral pratices, but they didnt impose their beliefs on the pagans.

What an attitude. Heaven is great but only for you(this is contrary to the Gospel). The country is fine but who cares if it goes to hell in a handbasket a generation or two from now.

 

[Brad]

Penny Plain:

And I think it is no business of mine to tell gay people that they should not be able to marry if they want.

It is your business. The Church has told us to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions.

 

[Brad]

Led Zeppelin75:

The problem is that not everyone hold the same morality as the Church does. Since the church pushes that morality it beliefes in that would classify as pushing their beliefs to the general public.

The Church doesn’t push it’s beliefs any more than the ACLU, NOW, Americans for the Separation of Church and State, the National Man Boy Love Association, PETA, Planned Parenthood or any other organization pushes it’s beliefs. It’s called free speech. The Church has every right to participate - those that oppose the Church’s teachings are free to do so - they simply do it at their own peril.

 

[twocinc]

I am curious. This thread has a decidedly political undertone, especially given the results of the recent national election and the discussion surrounding it. Specifically, there seems to be a discussion concerning the role of the State in regulating morality and our role as individuals in regulating the State by voting, activism, etc.

My question is this: when does an issue like gay marriage become more important than social justice issues like feeding hungry people, ending suffering, and working for peace? I support gay marriage (I am not Catholic, but do consider myself Christian), but even if I did not, a candidate that supported gay marriage, but also supported increased funding for social programs, advocated diplomacy and humanitarian intervention in foreign affairs, emphasized disarmament and military downsizing, and showed a concern for the environment would have my vote regardless.

It seems to me that these issues, which are about saving lives, ending or mitigating human suffering, and restoring human dignity are far far more important than who wants to marry whom. This also seems in line with the agenda of a certain Jewish peasant who ate with prostitues and tax collectors, derided religious leaders for their hypocrital legalistic piety, fed hungry people and had infinite compassion for the poor, lonely, and outcast.

-Matt

 

[Penny_Plain]

Lisa N:

Look you are simply proposing a totally hypothetical situation. I have a friend who is an adoption counsellor for “hard to place” children. This includes children born with SERIOUS medical issues, addicted to drugs, abused, you name it, these kids are facing a tough challenge. She said there is a long waiting list for any child and they only adopt to two parent, heterosexual couples.

I know many couples who are spending tens of thousands to adopt from overseas because quite frankly with abortion, there are very very few children in this country available for adoption. When was the last time you looked in the paper and saw “Free to good home” with respect to a child?

You are acting like there are so many kids for adoption that homosexuals are “better than nothing” as if their only option were to be tossed to the gutter. What a horrible attitude. The adoption issue is a major reason I am against homosexual marriage because a homosexual couple would be treated as equivalent in the case of an adoption and I do not think it is an equivalent situation, particularly for a medically or emotionally fragile child.

Totally hypothetical? Nonsense. Are you suggesting that homosexuals must be “procuring” their own children from petri dishes because you have one friend whose agency will only adopt to married straight couples?

You’re just wrong. Homosexual couples are able to adopt. Singles are able to adopt.

Maybe you need a little more data. The homosexual couples I know – with one exception – adopted from overseas. There appear to me to be plenty of children available for adoption from overseas. At least, there were the last time we did it. And yes, for many of those kids the options aren’t very good.

In many parts of the country, “hard to place” children can include children from minority backgrounds. I know, for example, that it is very hard for the Milwaukee foster care system to place black and Hispanic children for adoption because many of the families waiting to adopt are white and want white chidren. Those kids are crying out for homes.

 

[Lisa_N]

Penny Plain:

Totally hypothetical? Nonsense. Are you suggesting that homosexuals must be “procuring” their own children from petri dishes because you have one friend whose agency will only adopt to married straight couples?

In many parts of the country, “hard to place” children can include children from minority backgrounds. I know, for example, that it is very hard for the Milwaukee foster care system to place black and Hispanic children for adoption because many of the families waiting to adopt are white and want white chidren. Those kids are crying out for homes.

No, I am not basing my comments on one friend who works for an adoption agency, I am basing my comments on reading a myriad of books, publications, news stories, etc. I am basing my comment on my own experience and knowing people trying to adopt. Further I know of a number of homosexual couples who through sperm donors, IVF, rent a womb, etc were able to procure a child that was biologically related to one of them. This IS the trend Penny P, whether you’d like to admit it or not. Heck there is even a “child custody” case where two lesbians decided to have a child and since both wanted to be involved, one mother donated an egg, fertilized in a petri dish and then implanted in the other. Well who is the mother? Birth cert says Womb Mommy but Egg Donor Mommy wants her rights. Expect to see more of this Penny.

You are right homosexuals and singles are able to adopt. I wish it were not so but that is the way most agencies operate. The problem with homosexual marriage which IS the thread here, not just adoption, is that homosexuals will receive equivalent treatment when adopting when IMO they should not be the first choice. Once more a few extremists are forcing their agenda on us.

For example in this state a foster family attempted to adopt a boy after parental rights were terminated. Although they were approved for adopting a child, and although they could provide a situation where the boy could maintain contact with relatives in the area, the child was sent across the country to be adopted by two homosexual men. Why? Because they had their name in earlier (the child was not originally expected to be adoptable and thus the foster family did not originally apply to adopt him). When the couple objected saying they could provide a number of advantages that the homosexual couple could not provide, including contact with other family the agency told them if they made more waves they would not be allowed to adopt ANY child. IOW they are also victims to the homosexual agenda. There was just a news story in this area where a homosexual man adopted a boy…to use in child pornography. He was caught when he accidentally left the video in the camera he rented.

Do I think homosexuals should be married, allowing them easier access to children? NO.
Lisa N

 

[Penny_Plain]

Lisa N:

You are right homosexuals and singles are able to adopt. I wish it were not so but that is the way most agencies operate. The problem with homosexual marriage which IS the thread here, not just adoption, is that homosexuals will receive equivalent treatment when adopting when IMO they should not be the first choice. Once more a few extremists are forcing their agenda on us.

You’re the one who brought up the child issue, not me. I suspect we’re never going to agree, and we’re getting to the point where we’re just saying the same thing over and over again, except louder.

 

[Lisa_N]

Penny Plain:

You’re the one who brought up the child issue, not me. I suspect we’re never going to agree, and we’re getting to the point where we’re just saying the same thing over and over again, except louder.

You are right. I believe children are THE issue with regard to homosexual marriage. I don’t care what they do in their bedrooms, I don’t care who they visit in the hospital, I don’t care whose name is on the mailbox. I do resent any attempt to normalize abnormal behavior and the marriage issue is a big step on that path.

LIsa N

 

[Lisa_N]

twocinc:

It seems to me that these issues, which are about saving lives, ending or mitigating human suffering, and restoring human dignity are far far more important than who wants to marry whom. This also seems in line with the agenda of a certain Jewish peasant who ate with prostitues and tax collectors, derided religious leaders for their hypocrital legalistic piety, fed hungry people and had infinite compassion for the poor, lonely, and outcast.

-Matt

Matt you are certainly free to start a thread on the subject. See if people are interested.

I think the reason you see such a heated argument with respect to what is a trivial issue in comparison to people starving in Sudan if not next door is that this is something most of us relate to. Marriage is a building block of this society, for Catholics it’s a sacrament, and so an attack on marriage is taken quite seriously.

Lisa N