Gay marriage why is it wrong

[soccerdad57]

Hey look swimming , you’re on the right path - keep looking for answers here - God is definitely working on you - may you open your heart and may the Holy Spirit convert you because none of us here can do that - that is His job (though maybe we can be an instrument for Him to work with) - in the meantime may God Bless you abundantly! :clapping::dancing::extrahappy:

 

[sw85]

To everyone else it is your opinion this is my opinion ok. I have the right to say and think what I want to think. But how would you feel if you loved someone with every bone, and nerve of your body that you wanted to marry them so you go to a priest “some Catholic priests have married gays in states were it is legal” but then that priest, or people says to you, you may love them but just because you are the same sex as them you can’t. You aren’t excepting them for who they are. Bottom line everyone should love everyone for who they are no questions asked if we head that as a part of everyday life we most likely would have peace. Love God always and forever

                                                                                 From:
                                                                                       swimmingfreak live life in

Gods name. <3

Swimmingfreak, love itself is not the purpose of marriage. Love is ordered toward procreation: you love (romantically) because that’s nature’s way of compelling you to make love to your partner so as to produce lots of babies.

Romantic love that is ordered toward anything but procreation is simply disordered. It makes no sense. Why would we endorse it with “marriage”?

As for accepting them for who they are, you are not the sum of your nervous impulses. There is a “you” to you beyond your sex drive. Of course Catholics treat all people with love and respect (the good ones, anyway) but not accepting someone’s disordered lifestyle hardly counts as treating them hatefully.

 

[kbwall]

Homosexuals aren’t going to breed anyway, regardless if they’re allowed to wed or not. Banning their marriage won’t turn them straight.

As for the argument that it’s unnatural, well from a logical point of view, that’s true. They don’t reproduce, and if all humans were homosexual, then the human race would indeed die out fairly quickly. And yet they still happen naturally, somehow. Some people just aren’t attracted to the opposite sex, and no amount of banning their weddings will change that.

 

[Arkadin]

No one says you can’t love a person! And no, you can’t marry anyone you want to. You can’t legally marry a close relative,

In New York and a bunch of other states, you can legally marry your first cousin.

 

[sw85]

Homosexuals aren’t going to breed anyway, regardless if they’re allowed to wed or not. Banning their marriage won’t turn them straight.

As for the argument that it’s unnatural, well from a logical point of view, that’s true. They don’t reproduce, and if all humans were homosexual, then the human race would indeed die out fairly quickly. And yet they still happen naturally, somehow. Some people just aren’t attracted to the opposite sex, and no amount of banning their weddings will change that.

It has nothing to do with “turning them straight” (much less “banning their marriage”; the point is that they cannot marry because such would be an ontological non sequitur).

The argument is not that it’s unnatural but that it’s contrary to natural law. It is good for things to act in accordance with their ends, and people to act in accordance with their faculties. Our sexual faculty serves the end of procreation. QED.

 

[Defender1]

That is not true: I mean, not in terms of the intentions of those lobbying for this change in the understanding of marriage. The desire of homosexuals to enter into marriage is misguided, but it has nothing to do with mocking us. It has to do with a profound misunderstanding of their own human dignity, but it isn’t borne out of a desire to profane heterosexuality. Quite the opposite. It is borne of a desire to raise the status of homosexuality to something admirable.

In case you were unaware , the black mass is done by satanists . Its a mock mass of the Catholic mass . He was trying to bring his point across using this . Homosexuals dont aim to mock us by marrying they want the same rights as we have but According to God they do not deserve that right nor are they entitled . When Paul gives advice for men of God to be unmarried in 1Cor 7:32-35 (I think) Paul mentions how a married man and woman are concerned about the stress of the world how they may please their spouses while a single man and woman are concerned of how they may please GOd because they dont have those stresses . Notice how (if you read it) how Paul never says anything about homosexuals being married or two of the same gender (and Homosexuality existed very commonly back then ) Something to think about this is aside from the verses against homosexual acts in the bible .

 

[Newbie2]

Every one of us is a product of our age. Those who grew up in the era of slavery mostly saw nothing wrong with it (unless they were black!). Those who grew up in the era when women were not allowed to vote mostly felt this was wise. Those who grew up in a land of legal and culturally applauded abortion mostly see nothing wrong with it (until/unless they experience it firsthand).

We have to recongize that WE are people who have grown up in an era when marriage has been REdefined like this: “Marriage is the union of a man and woman who feel great love for one another, want to publicly celebrate that feeling of love and have it last forever.” The strange thing is that this definition (I call it Hollywood Marriage) contains ZERO reason for government to be even remotely involved in it, much less to ‘deny’ it to homosexuals (or polygamists or even the incestuous).

The reason government regulates marriage and grants certain priviledges to marriage is that we historically defined marriage VERY differently. Just Google the traditional marriage vows and it becomes quite clear that marriage was traditionally defined like this: “Marriage is the permanent and sacred bond of a self-sacrificing love so great that it holds the power to bring forth and nurture new life, most fully manifesting humanity’s ability to reflect the image and likeness of God.” See the difference? The push to drop this definition started in the 40’s and reached total success in the 60’s when the current ‘Hollywood’ definition achieved dominance in America.

The old definition clearly placed the focus of marriage outward on the other spouse and on the children that resulted, instead of on the feelings of the self. It tended to create a stable society with plenty of well raised and educated children to sustain and raise the level of civilization. Governments recognized the long term self interest of their people as set policies to reinforce and reward this culturally constructive institution. The “me” focused Hollywood marriage definition produces narcicism, divorce, unrealistic expectations and fatally few children (every country that has effectively adopted it now has a negative long term fertility rate).

The reason people don’t oppose gay marriage is because they simply don’t know what marriage really is.

Excellent post, MM. Look at how secular society views marriage; something to be discarded and to start over with someone else when the going gets tough…“irreconcilable differences”.

 

[soccerdad57]

If 2 men should be allowed to marry why can’t 3 men marry each other or 3 men and 3women and 1 transgender all have 1 group marriage? or is marriage only limited to 2 people and if so then why? Once you change the meaning of marriage to mean something else then why stop there? Shouldn’t everyone be allowed to re-define it to meet their own idea of what it should be? And if not - why not?

Marriage is the sacred institution that is the foundation of the family, kids are born from the holy and purposeful union of 1 man and 1 woman and together a family is created - in accordance with God’s word. Marriage is unique and special - but has certain defining characteristics which make it so. Once you gut the defining characteristics from marriage it is not unique and once you define anything and everything as marriage it is not special either if everything is special then nothing is special.

The way to destroy the american family is to strike at its foundation - without marriage there is no family its just a bunch of people living together. Now why would anyone want to destroy the family - or maybe just limit its authority at first - well who would benefit from a family with less authority? - well since the family has always been the foundational force against al all powerful government I tend to look there first. There are those in government who are always striving for a bigger and bigger government with more and more power - swimming you sound like a guy who cares about people just be careful what you wish for

 

[the_7th_one]

If 2 men should be allowed to marry why can’t 3 men marry each other or 3 men and 3women and 1 transgender all have 1 group marriage? or is marriage only limited to 2 people and if so then why? Once you change the meaning of marriage to mean something else then why stop there? Shouldn’t everyone be allowed to re-define it to meet their own idea of what it should be? And if not - why not?

Marriage is the sacred institution that is the foundation of the family, kids are born from the holy and purposeful union of 1 man and 1 woman and together a family is created - in accordance with God’s word. Marriage is unique and special - but has certain defining characteristics which make it so. Once you gut the defining characteristics from marriage it is not unique and once you define anything and everything as marriage it is not special either if everything is special then nothing is special.

The way to destroy the american family is to strike at its foundation - without marriage there is no family its just a bunch of people living together. Now why would anyone want to destroy the family - or maybe just limit its authority at first - well who would benefit from a family with less authority? - well since the family has always been the foundational force against al all powerful government I tend to look there first. There are those in government who are always striving for a bigger and bigger government with more and more power - swimming you sound like a guy who cares about people just be careful what you wish for

Amen:thumbsup:

 

[smichhertz]

But how would you feel if you loved someone with every bone, and nerve of your body that you wanted to marry them so you go to a priest “some Catholic priests have married gays in states were it is legal” but then that priest, or people says to you, you may love them but just because you are the same sex as them you can’t. You aren’t excepting them for who they are.

I’ll see your scenario and raise you one. What if you wanted to do drugs with “every bone and nerve of your body” and someone told you that you shouldn’t do it? Wouldn’t that person not be accepting you for who you are?

Bottom line everyone should love everyone for who they are no questions asked if we head that as a part of everyday life we most likely would have peace.

Loving someone does not mean accepting every single behavior someone chooses. Sometimes people get confused and choose things that are harmful for them. And when that happens, people who truly love come out and tell them not to.

Homosexual acts are harmful to all involved in them. It is never a loving thing to do to allow someone to engage in them, just like it wouldn’t be loving for me to allow someone to shoot up heroin or do some other harmful act.

 

[mangy_dog]

Keep it simple:

Homosexual feelings - not sinful.

Homosexual feelings and mannerisms - not sinful.

Homosexual activity - sinful.

To seek “[marriage]” as some means of officiality or an “in your face” display…that is also homosexual activity…sinful.

To proclaim and defend homosexual activity as something good and natural is also sinful.

A sin is a sin is a sin. Whether that’s adultery, fornication or active homosexuality.

Sugarcoat it as you will - it does not change Sacred Scripture; Sacred Tradition (Magesterium) or Sacred Revelation.