Does anyone here, that believes in God, actually think that God accepts gay marriage?

[CaliLobo]

Could you please read this thread from page 12 and let me know what you think? especially my posts here - #168, #169

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=839054&page=12

One thing I find interesting is you say “support gay marriage bans by law” id like to ask you, what exactly are we banning?

The other thing I find interesting, is that you say “protestants understand this” now when it comes to same sex marriage, I agree, alot of them do understand this and are right on par with the Catholic Church’s view on it too, I get many of my arguments on same sex marriage from protestants on youtube.

Thank you for reading
Josh

You guys are supporting the ban of the recognition of gay marriages by law, and the ban of the recognition of a gay person’s right to marry someone of the same gender.

In addition, not all Protestants are alike. Yes, the Focus on the Family and Christian Coalition types support SSM bans, but there are many younger Protestants who see things differently. Either way, Protestants are told to vote according to their own consciences.

As far as the Bible verses you cited, yes, a Christian is not to engage in gay sex in his own personal life. It is an abomination. But the Bible still says nothing about how to vote in a secular democracy, for it predates democracy.

**So the idea that Tradition says we should support gay marriage bans is a logical fallacy, for the Bible and Church predate democracy and voting.
**
Personally, I fail to see how denying gays the right to marry constitutes showing love to them. All it does is impose our beliefs on them, oppress and reject them, and make it less likely for gays to turn to the Church. If you ask many gays, they will admire Jesus, yet they believe that the Church and its people are a horrible representation of what Jesus truly is. And therefore they refuse to go to church.

No wonder why the gay community thrives, for Christians have rejected them.

**The only real way to change the lifestyle of a gay person is to preach the Gospel, and hope that he or she changes voluntarily. ** But to oppress them by supporting legal bans–history will see this as yet another mistake of the Church.

Soon gay marriage rights will exist in all 50 states and all of the developed world. People increasingly understand that homosexuality is a normal trait that exists in about 5% of the population. People tomorrow will laugh at people today and question why the heck did we support such cruel bans.

 

[GraceUnderFire]

Male and female he created them. Period. Homosexual acts are an abomination and offensive to God. He loves gay people but hates this sin(as he hates the many other sins that all people commit–gay or straight!). Any Christian who defends gay “marriage” has a limited understanding of the purpose of marriage. Marriage is a reflection of the tribune Godhead. Two men or two women cannot express love in a God-reflecting way, as evident by the extreme measures these couples have to take to attempt to normalize their relationships. It is an aberration.

 

[Rau]

Nope.

The gay couple wanted the child for the couple’s own happiness. The friend I previously mentioned was concerned for a time, because tests were showing that the baby might have Down Syndrome.

The gay couple were already deciding when it might be best to terminate, before further tests were even coming back. Thank God for the child that tests now show the baby to be fine.

So, you see, the couple only wanted the child as long as it was a happy event for THEM. It’s all about their happiness. That child would have been nothing more than a troubling memory for them if tests had shown that it was ill. So much for the child’s well-being and happiness.

Further, when at all possible, a child NEEDS a mother AND father to learn from and grow with. Purposefully denying the child the benefit of a mother or father will only harm that child greatly in the long run.

I think only your last para is a valid argument. A heterosexual couple may also seek a child for their happiness, and consider abortion in the scenario you outline.

 

[Rau]

Why do you think accepting gay marriage automatically means that male-female genders are a waste of time?

God made a variety of people in this world.

I don’t think he suggests that. His point is that gay people are also objectively male or female, yet their orientation and behaviour are inconsistent with their biology, which seems to make no sense.

So the question is whether their biology sets the overriding restrictions on acceptable behaviour? [Orientation is not a choice, behaviour is.]

If you say yes, then the second question is to ask, “why are there gay people”? My assumption is that a defect of some kind affects those people.

 

[Rau]

You guys are supporting the ban of the recognition of gay marriages by law, and the ban of the recognition of a gay person’s right to marry someone of the same gender.

As far as the Bible verses you cited, yes, a Christian is not to engage in gay sex in his own personal life. It is an abomination. But the Bible still says nothing about how to vote in a secular democracy, for it predates democracy.

So the idea that Tradition says we should support gay marriage bans is a logical fallacy, for the Bible and Church predate democracy and voting.

Personally, I fail to see how denying gays the right to marry constitutes showing love to them. All it does is impose our beliefs on them, oppress and reject them, and make it less likely for gays to turn to the Church. If you ask many gays, they will admire Jesus, yet they believe that the Church and its people are a horrible representation of what Jesus truly is. And therefore they refuse to go to church.

In your thinking, what is “marriage”, in the context of gay persons? If you have in mind a contractual arrangement in the secular world that might facilitate various legal and financial outcomes, I’ve no objection, though such an arrangement needs to be given its own distinctive name. But, I presume you have in mind a relationship that is intrinsically sexual in nature, yet the members of the “marriage” are of the same sex, are incapable of a natural sexual act and cannot play their part in producing children.

Would you extend your “right of marriage” to groupings of 3 or more people? If not, why do you deny people who would want that?

God’s law is for the guidance and salvation of all.

 

[Lochias]

I think only your last para is a valid argument. A heterosexual couple may also seek a child for their happiness, and consider abortion in the scenario you outline.

A heterosexual couple seeking IVF is at as much fault as the gay couple in my scenario. There’s no excuse for IVF; we have enough children that need adopting, and to ignore those in favor of a “custom-made” IVF child is to see to one’s own happiness, not the happiness of a child already in need of parents.

 

[Rau]

A heterosexual couple seeking IVF is at as much fault as the gay couple in my scenario. There’s no excuse for IVF; we have enough children that need adopting, and to ignore those in favor of a “custom-made” IVF child is to see to one’s own happiness, not the happiness of a child already in need of parents.

I was not considering IVF. But putting that aside, you partially make a case to adopt rather than to conceive anew, while ever there are orphans in need. (Certainly, quite apart from this discussion, there is a case to be made to meet the needs of orphans.)

 

[Lochias]

I was not considering IVF. But putting that aside, you partially make a case to adopt rather than to conceive anew, while ever there are orphans in need. (Certainly, quite apart from this discussion, there is a case to be made to meet the needs of orphans.)

No, I’m not making that case, because a real marriage is intrinsically open to life to begin with.

You can’t compare an actual marriage between two heterosexual people with a fake “homosexual marriage”; the two are miles apart, and many conditions that apply to one simply don’t apply to the other, regardless of what many think.

 

[CaliLobo]

In your thinking, what is “marriage”, in the context of gay persons? If you have in mind a contractual arrangement in the secular world that might facilitate various legal and financial outcomes, I’ve no objection, though such an arrangement needs to be given its own distinctive name.

I see what you mean, but we’ve done that with the term “civil union”, which has paved the way for denial of those very legal rights that gays are entering these unions for.

Rau:

But, I presume you have in mind a relationship that is intrinsically sexual in nature, yet the members of the “marriage” are of the same sex, are incapable of a natural sexual act and cannot play their part in producing children.

Why does ability to produce children have anything to do with marriage? This line of logic is flawed when we consider heterosexual couples that are infertile.

Rau:

Would you extend your “right of marriage” to groupings of 3 or more people? If not, why do you deny people who would want that?

God’s law is for the guidance and salvation of all.

Historically, polygamy was the norm! Why are Christians attempting to usurp the definition of marriage to only include monogamous heterosexual couples?

In a broader level, what is the relevance of marriage in today’s world? For companionship? For children? For economic reasons? Cohabitation works just fine, people can raise a child by themselves, and people can live just fine financially as singles.

For uniting families and passing on the family name? Nah, people don’t care about that the way they used to.

For legal rights? Now we are getting somewhere. But why does this have to be limited to monogamous heterosexual couples? Why do we deny these rights to gay couples, threesomes, polyamorous and polygamous arrangements?

Because it is a representation of how Christ loved the Church, and because Christ needs to be at the center of a marriage for it to be successful? Okay, that’s fine if you believe that, but not everyone in this world believes that. So who are Christians to impose their beliefs on others in the political arena?

We also need to ask, why is the Christian church so hell-bent on denying gays the right to SSM?

Does it advance the Kingdom? No. Gays are felt rejected by the Church.

Does it help preach the Gospel? No. Gays do not see Jesus in the Church, when the Church actively works to deny them secular civil rights.

What do secular civil rights have to do with the Church’s mission to preach the Gospel? Good question, who knows.

Is it loving? No. Denying civil rights is not loving.

Is there a Bible verse to support denying civil rights to gays? No. The verses cited earlier in this forum are not on point. And if you use Leviticus to support your position, then why do Christians have tattoos and shave the backs of their heads? Either they are inconsistent, hypocritical, or Leviticus no longer applies to today’s people since that book was for ancient Israel.

Is it cooperating with evil to let gays have the right to marry? If so, then Christians need to support laws banning porn and prostitution.

Have Christians done a good job of exemplifying Christ in their marriages? Not at all. The divorce rate among Christians is equal to that of non-Christians. And Christians sin sexually just like everyone else. So why should the world listen to Christians?

Christians need to clean up their act before having the audacity to impose their beliefs on others in the political arena.

Protestants understand that the primary mission of the Church should be to cultivate one’s individual relationship with Christ. Protestants understand that politics is just a worldly distraction and that politics doesn’t save us.

 

[EasterJoy]

I see what you mean, but we’ve done that with the term “civil union”, which has paved the way for denial of those very legal rights that gays are entering these unions for.

Why does ability to produce children have anything to do with marriage? This line of logic is flawed when we consider heterosexual couples that are infertile.

Historically, polygamy was the norm! Why are Christians attempting to usurp the definition of marriage to only include monogamous heterosexual couples?h

In a broader level, what is the relevance of marriage in today’s world? For companionship? For children? For economic reasons? Cohabitation works just fine, people can raise a child by themselves, and people can live just fine financially as singles.

For uniting families and passing on the family name? Nah, people don’t care about that the way they used to.

For legal rights? Now we are getting somewhere. But why does this have to be limited to monogamous heterosexual couples? Why do we deny these rights to gay couples, threesomes, polyamorous and polygamous arrangements?

Because it is a representation of how Christ loved the Church, and because Christ needs to be at the center of a marriage for it to be successful? Okay, that’s fine if you believe that, but not everyone in this world believes that. So who are Christians to impose their beliefs on others in the political arena?

We also need to ask, why is the Christian church so hell-bent on denying gays the right to SSM?

Does it advance the Kingdom? No. Gays are felt rejected by the Church.

Does it help preach the Gospel? No. Gays do not see Jesus in the Church, when the Church actively works to deny them secular civil rights.

What do secular civil rights have to do with the Church’s mission to preach the Gospel? Good question, who knows.

Is it loving? No. Denying civil rights is not loving.

Is there a Bible verse to support denying civil rights to gays? No. The verses cited earlier in this forum are not on point. And if you use Leviticus to support your position, then why do Christians have tattoos and shave the backs of their heads? Either they are inconsistent, hypocritical, or Leviticus no longer applies to today’s people since that book was for ancient Israel.

Is it cooperating with evil to let gays have the right to marry? If so, then Christians need to support laws banning porn and prostitution.

Have Christians done a good job of exemplifying Christ in their marriages? Not at all. The divorce rate among Christians is equal to that of non-Christians. And Christians sin sexually just like everyone else. So why should the world listen to Christians?

Christians need to clean up their act before having the audacity to impose their beliefs on others in the political arena.

Protestants understand that the primary mission of the Church should be to cultivate one’s individual relationship with Christ. Protestants understand that politics is just a worldly distraction and that politics doesn’t save us.

I fail to see how giving advantages to couples can be defended to unmarried people, if not for the goal of having children raised by their biological parents. Once children become like puppies that are raised as they are wanted by whom they are wanted, why would the single have any stake in making civil sacrifices to support “marriage”?

I’d have an easier time defending the Christian view of marriage than the progressive “all-inclusive view”.

 

[meltzerboy]

I see what you mean, but we’ve done that with the term “civil union”, which has paved the way for denial of those very legal rights that gays are entering these unions for.

Why does ability to produce children have anything to do with marriage? This line of logic is flawed when we consider heterosexual couples that are infertile.

Historically, polygamy was the norm! Why are Christians attempting to usurp the definition of marriage to only include monogamous heterosexual couples?

In a broader level, what is the relevance of marriage in today’s world? For companionship? For children? For economic reasons? Cohabitation works just fine, people can raise a child by themselves, and people can live just fine financially as singles.

For uniting families and passing on the family name? Nah, people don’t care about that the way they used to.

For legal rights? Now we are getting somewhere. But why does this have to be limited to monogamous heterosexual couples? Why do we deny these rights to gay couples, threesomes, polyamorous and polygamous arrangements?

Because it is a representation of how Christ loved the Church, and because Christ needs to be at the center of a marriage for it to be successful? Okay, that’s fine if you believe that, but not everyone in this world believes that. So who are Christians to impose their beliefs on others in the political arena?

We also need to ask, why is the Christian church so hell-bent on denying gays the right to SSM?

Does it advance the Kingdom? No. Gays are felt rejected by the Church.

Does it help preach the Gospel? No. Gays do not see Jesus in the Church, when the Church actively works to deny them secular civil rights.

What do secular civil rights have to do with the Church’s mission to preach the Gospel? Good question, who knows.

Is it loving? No. Denying civil rights is not loving.

Is there a Bible verse to support denying civil rights to gays? No. The verses cited earlier in this forum are not on point. And if you use Leviticus to support your position, then why do Christians have tattoos and shave the backs of their heads? Either they are inconsistent, hypocritical, or Leviticus no longer applies to today’s people since that book was for ancient Israel.

Is it cooperating with evil to let gays have the right to marry? If so, then Christians need to support laws banning porn and prostitution.

Have Christians done a good job of exemplifying Christ in their marriages? Not at all. The divorce rate among Christians is equal to that of non-Christians. And Christians sin sexually just like everyone else. So why should the world listen to Christians?

Christians need to clean up their act before having the audacity to impose their beliefs on others in the political arena.

Protestants understand that the primary mission of the Church should be to cultivate one’s individual relationship with Christ. Protestants understand that politics is just a worldly distraction and that politics doesn’t save us.

Some good and thought-provoking points. I don’t agree with everything you say but most of it sounds interesting to me. The statement concerning Leviticus is flawed because those particular laws are meant only for believers in Judaism, and not even followed by many Jews. The main purpose of marriage, according to Judaism, is love and companionship rather than procreation. I think Catholics would argue that infertile couples cannot have children due to a medical reason although they can adopt, which is not the same in the case of gay couples, who are by nature not “open to life.” They too can adopt, however (which is another issue). There are straight couples who intentionally choose not to have children, and I’m not sure what the Catholic stance on this is.

 

[PRmerger]

I know you most likely don’t believe in abortion under any circumstances, but couldn’t a couple, whether straight or gay, be thinking about aborting an unborn baby with Down’s syndrome out of concern for the baby and not for selfish reasons? Or perhaps a combination of reasons? Further, are you basing your view on gay adoption and parenting on this single case alone, as if all or most gay couples think and behave alike?

Friend, could you please address my question that I had posed earlier?

In response to Prodigal Son’s challenge to give one unselfish reason that a loving could might legitimately have to abort an unborn baby with Down Syndrome…

And this reason needs to apply to an unborn baby with Down Syndrome without being a reason to also kill a born child with Down Syndrome, (unless, meltzerboy, you find it moral to have a good reason to kill a born child with DS, in which case I say

I understand that you may not, necessarily, have espoused the belief that it’s moral to abort a baby with Down Syndrome, but that you are offering possible reasons for a couple to do so.

So…can you respond to the above challenges, please?

 

[meltzerboy]

Friend, could you please address my question that I had posed earlier?

In response to Prodigal Son’s challenge to give one unselfish reason that a loving could might legitimately have to abort an unborn baby with Down Syndrome…

I understand that you may not, necessarily, have espoused the belief that it’s moral to abort a baby with Down Syndrome, but that you are offering possible reasons for a couple to do so.

So…can you respond to the above challenges, please?

Judaism forbids killing a child who is born. There are, however, extenuating circumstances in which it would be permitted to abort an unborn child. That is in response to your question.

In response to the question raised by Prodigal Son, one unselfish reason to abort an unborn child with Down syndrome would be to spare that child a life of limited opportunities and many difficult challenges, including physical ones perhaps, due mainly to their diminished mental capacity. Parents might especially be worried who would take care of their child in the future if and when they would not be able to do so. I must reiterate, however, that I would not necessarily do this and I realize a Down syndrome baby may bring joy to a couple as well as lead a good and happy life. But I also think that, in the end, it should be the couple’s decision.

 

[PRmerger]

]But I also think that, in the end, it should be the couple’s decision.

But not if the child is already born, right?

What is the difference? Is it not merely a matter of environment for the human life?

 

[meltzerboy]

But not if the child is already born, right?

What is the difference? Is it not merely a matter of environment for the human life?

It is a matter of Jewish Law. An unborn child is not accorded the same status as a person compared to a born child although abortion is never taken lightly. The soul is believed to enter the body at birth, according to the verse in Genesis which describes the infusion of the breath of life in Adam after his body was formed from the earth.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is a matter of Jewish Law. An unborn child is not accorded the same status as a person compared to a born child although abortion is never taken lightly. The soul is believed to enter the body at birth, according to the verse in Genesis which describes the infusion of the breath of life in Adam after his body was formed from the earth.

I’m not a rabbi, but I’m quite sure that yours is only one interpretation of Jewish teaching. In my ecumenical readings, ensoulment is not a topic that any faith community has widespread agreement on. I would be shocked if the Jews are any exception, especially considering verses like Psalm 139: “you knit me together in my mother’s womb”.

If there had been no ensoulment taking place in the womb, that verse ought to read, “You knit the thing that would become me in my mother’s womb” – which is a heck of a lot less true, and less poetic.

 

[SuperLuigi]

No, I sincerely doubt God does not accept so-called “gay marriage”.

 

[PRmerger]

It is a matter of Jewish Law.

I understand that. But the law is rooted in what? The belief that an unborn child is not alive? Or that it is not human?

 

[meltzerboy]

I understand that. But the law is rooted in what? The belief that an unborn child is not alive? Or that it is not human?

The unborn child is not considered a full person, who consists of both a body and soul. As I stated in my other post, the Jewish belief is that the soul does not enter the body until birth. Still, simply aborting an unborn child for no truly compelling reason is absolutely forbidden. Thus there is some disagreement within Judaism regarding what constitutes a compelling reason for abortion. The mother’s life being endangered is one that is accepted by all; however there are other lenencies which are debated, including two unborn babies who both would die if the one who is sick is not aborted; extreme congenital illness in which the baby would most likely not survive very long and be in physical pain; incest and rape.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Historically, polygamy was the norm! Why are Christians attempting to usurp the definition of marriage to only include monogamous heterosexual couples?

Natural law and economics

In a broader level, what is the relevance of marriage in today’s world? For companionship? For children? For economic reasons?

The relevance of marriage has not changed. The ideas being pushed by progressives have no logical basis.

Cohabitation works just fine,

It does not. Studies have shown that couples who live together without marriage are even less likely to marry.

I’ve also coached women who lived with a man for 8-13 years who would not commit to the woman in the relationship.

people can raise a child by themselves, and people can live just fine financially as singles.

Then we wouldn’t need welfare for single women, would we?

For uniting families and passing on the family name? Nah, people don’t care about that the way they used to.

That is not the reason the state is involved in marriage.

For legal rights? Now we are getting somewhere. But why does this have to be limited to monogamous heterosexual couples? Why do we deny these rights to gay couples, threesomes, polyamorous and polygamous arrangements?

Because it’s not our responsibility to make other people feel good. Besides, those arrangements are not in the economic benefit of the state.

Because it is a representation of how Christ loved the Church, and because Christ needs to be at the center of a marriage for it to be successful? Okay, that’s fine if you believe that, but not everyone in this world believes that. So who are Christians to impose their beliefs on others in the political arena?

My reasons are secular and it’s not imposing.

Imposing would be suing a Christian business because you think one particular shop uptown making you a “wedding” cake is a human right.

We also need to ask, why is the Christian church so h++±bent on denying gays the right to SSM?

Actually, if Christians stood united against this, so-called gay “marriage” would be illegal most every where.

Does it advance the Kingdom? No. Gays are felt rejected by the Church.

The Catholic Church has missions for GLBTQ folks, but the fundamental Truths about natural law cannot be changed.

Does it help preach the Gospel? No. Gays do not see Jesus in the Church, when the Church actively works to deny them secular civil rights.

Marriage is not a right, and I thought you wanted religion and government separate?

What do secular civil rights have to do with the Church’s mission to preach the Gospel? Good question, who knows.

A lot, because marriage is an important Sacrament in raising children.

So we do know and playing ignorance on the issue will not work.

Is it loving? No. Denying civil rights is not loving.

Slavery used to a be legal. Is denying that back in the 1700s loving?

That’s what you get with loose, secular definitions of love.

Is there a Bible verse to support denying civil rights to gays? No. The verses cited earlier in this forum are not on point. And if you use Leviticus to support your position, then why do Christians have tattoos and shave the backs of their heads? Either they are inconsistent, hypocritical, or Leviticus no longer applies to today’s people since that book was for ancient Israel.

If you have a problem with the Old Testament, talk to the Jews.

Is it cooperating with evil to let gays have the right to marry? If so, then Christians need to support laws banning porn and prostitution.

There is a limit to government intervention. I’ve cautioned Christians who think that some big theocracy would work. It would not.

We need to have a serious discussion about getting government out of marriage altogether. Not in the least because it’s involvement, which is supposed to be based on economics and population growth, is not working in most places in the First and Second World. I mean, you can’t even pay people to have enough kids, and

Have Christians done a good job of exemplifying Christ in their marriages? Not at all. The divorce rate among Christians is equal to that of non-Christians. And Christians sin sexually just like everyone else.

So why should the world listen to Christians?

I think the world needs to listen to Jesus and the early Saints more than to Christians. For one thing, many Christians are part of the problem.

But I would pose the same question to you: Why should we listen to the non-religious? What credentials do you have that we should listen to you?

Christians need to clean up their act before having the audacity to impose their beliefs on others in the political arena.

It’s still free speech, which is a Constitutional right. Marriage is not.

BTW, it must be really easy for you to call your religion two question marks and cast down directives and orders for us to follow.

It’s amusing how the non-religious confidently thrust their dogma on the rest of us from what they think is a higher place.

Protestants understand that the primary mission of the Church should be to cultivate one’s individual relationship with Christ. Protestants understand that politics is just a worldly distraction and that politics doesn’t save us.

Protestants are even more conservative and more against so-called “gay marriage” than Catholics.

You really haven’t done your homework on this, have you?