Gay Marriage

[choy]

A fellow Christian once told me this: “I am a Christian, and I will support gay rights, as my Bible teaches tolerance and acceptance; it teaches love and compassion; it doesn’t teach bigotry and hatred.”

I always thought that Catholicism is against homosexual acts. Homosexual love and desire are not sins but engaging in sex would be an act against God. What about gay marriage? Would that be a homosexual act and should Catholics be opposed to that?

Jesus clearly said and is quoted in the Bible that marraige is only between a man and a woman. two men cannot become one, nor two women. only a man and a woman becomes one flesh in marriage. its how God intended it to be.

so yes, Gay Marriage is a sin

Furthermore, we are not to judge others. Only God can judge us. Therefore wouldn’t us taking away rights from homosexuals be a sin? Afterall, it’s their problem and they are the ones who must repent for committing homosexual acts.

this is the greatest misunderstanding of Sacred Scripture

by not judging others, it doesn’t mean we are to tolerate sin nor let people continue in their wrong doing. to know if you are in judgement, see if you condemn someone for condemnation is a result of judgement. we cannot say for sure that gay people are going to hell. if we do, then that it judgement. but saying that what they are doing is a sin is not judgement. we are to lead each other to Christ. telling someone to turn away from sin is not a judgement.

 

[estesbob]

Exactly. And we know the Church has made mistakes in the past, so producing examples of those in no way proves that the Church is wrong about this issue. Also it should be noted that the Church has not been wrong in the area of Faith and Morals.

I would rather put my faith in the Church that Christ founded and told Peter that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it, then trust in man.

Correct- there were no mistakes on matters of Faith and Morals. The Church , BTW, never encouraged chattel slavery, never based its teachings on what sperm was, and didnt burn millions at the stake during the Spanish inquisitioin. That and the alleged persecution of Galllio for his scientifivc views are usually the canards thrown out whenever one is convinced that Church must change its teachings to accomodate the culture of the day

 

[surritter]

You ask for examples of something and when I show them to you, you say they do not count.

I don’t think I have done that. I’ve been consistent in keeping the discussion on the design of the human body. You like to bring up aberrations – and I acknowledge that they exist, whether they are chosen or not – but those do not change the design intent upon which marriage is based.

Lets consider your latest variation:
“If marriage has nothing to do with sexuality, then what is the foundational basis for “secular” marriage? Is it merely to gain legal rights of survivorship? Please explain.”
Lets look at how you word it.

You start with a comment attributed to me that I didn’t make and as far I can remember, nobody in the thread made: “If marriage has nothing to do with sexuality, then what is the foundational basis for a “secular” marriage?”

OK, let’s stop right there:

1. 
   *]Is sexuality an integral part of what marriage is?
   *]Is procreation one of the purposes of sexuality?
   *]Is it acceptable to pursue sexual acts while purposely shutting out the procreation element?
   
   If you would be kind enough to answer those three questions, I can give you a better reply that will avoid having me be accused of putting words in your mouth.
   

   Aside from avoiding the real discussion by making stuff up out of thin air, you do realize that the church has described sacramental marriage as much more than just sexuality.

   That’s true, but the Church most definitely says that sexuality is an essential foundation for the definition of marriage as an institution. So your assertion is irrelevant.
   It’s like saying that air consists of more than oxygen, while at the same time trying to argue that we don’t need oxygen to breathe.
   

   And the church continues to expand upon this point in its writings about the fullness of marriage. Why , because the past descriptions for the basis of marriage that were based primarily on the pro creative aspect of sacramental marriage ignored the reality that many catholics entering marriage had no ability to fulfill the pro creative aspect of the marriage.

   Once again, you need to realize that discussing whether the procreative aspect is the primary, secondary, or tertiary aspect is quite different from discussing if the procreative aspect can be tossed out altogether when defining marriage. The Church has ALWAYS maintained that procreation is somewhere in the equation when discussing marriage. Yet with homosexual “marriage” it is by definition tossed aside. That’s the problem.
   That is also why I keep going back to the question of the function or reason for marriage, if sexuality is irrelevant. And on that, I don’t think you’ve given an adequate answer.
   

   So to answer your question about the non-sexual components of marriage, you can do the work and just use the church’s reasons for allowing people to marry who have no ability to meet the traditional procreative nature of Catholic marriage.

   Well, I must admit that I can’t do the work – I’d like you to spell it out for me. I’ve shown you already that the Church allows infertile or elderly couples to marry because the DESIGN of the person is there for sexuality and procreation, though nature has made those functions inoperable or dormant. But the Church doesn’t allow homosexuals to marry because the DESIGN is not there.
   

   Don’t rely on what I say are reasons, use the reasons the church uses. I’m sure they are in the references made by other posters in their signatures.

   I’ve read the references, but honestly I think you haven’t, because the Church clearly teaches the same rationale that I’ve been giving. It’s been suggested that you read some of Christopher West’s stuff or John Paul II, or heck even the Catechism, but I suspect that you haven’t.
   
   I hope you don’t think we’re ganging up on you Ariporca.
   Many of us on these Forums have struggled with the reasons for Church teaching, but when one can put aside feelings and listen to the reasons, I am certain that over time the fact that males and females go together in a certain way will dawn on you as being important to procreation, and thus to sex, and thus to marriage.

 

[estesbob]

Lets see the church had Galileo locked up and confined to quarters (albeit nice ones, hence the comment in my post) so they put him away without charging him. So technically they harmed him, but didn’t harm him because they didn’t actually use a proceeding against him.

And it was OK because they released him later and that made everything previous to the incarceration go away?

Is that what you are saying? So it was like that guy in Germany that locked up the teenage girl. He didn’t do anything wrong because he just put her in the basement without a trial?

And this relates to the morality of homosexual behavior becuase?

Peace

 

[estesbob]

I hope you don’t think we’re ganging up on you Ariporca.
Many of us on these Forums have struggled with the reasons for Church teaching, but when one can put aside feelings and listen to the reasons, I am certain that over time the fact that males and females go together in a certain way will dawn on you as being important to procreation, and thus to sex, and thus to marriage.

That is correect. I really struggle with the Churhc;s prohibition against barrier methods of contraception. I accept it , however, and dont tell others it is OK.

 

[surritter]

That is correect. I really struggle with the Churhc;s prohibition against barrier methods of contraception. I accept it , however, and dont tell others it is OK.

Man, I was in that boat too for a long time! Check out my responses in this thread for help in understanding it. I got scolded for using bulimia as an analogy – though the intention was not to insult what is often considered a mental disorder – but I think the logic still works.

 

[portarica]

Correct- there were no mistakes on matters of Faith and Morals. The Church , BTW, never encouraged chattel slavery, never based its teachings on what sperm was, and didnt burn millions at the stake during the Spanish inquisitioin. That and the alleged persecution of Galllio for his scientifivc views are usually the canards thrown out whenever one is convinced that Church must change its teachings to accomodate the culture of the day

It is interesting how you parse your arguments.

Like the inquisition one, who said millions? One or a hundred being burned alive, that’s OK as long as it isn’t a million? As far a Galileo it just pointed out that the church does nasty things when its teachings are questioned and sometimes it is later found out that its teachings were wrong.

And again you say the church must change its teachings to accommodate the culture of the day. Just because they did it in the past, doesn’t mean they must do it now, nobody is saying they must and I have said on more than one occasion here that I don’t feel the church must change on the subject being discussed.

Peace

 

[OraLabora]

Gay Marriage though would be equivalent to an alcoholic who wants to be a bartender. Besides the fact that the marriage could never be valid, Catholics are opposed to gay marriage because it would create the constant “occasion” for sin, which needs to be avoided by everyone at all times.

This is not at all the reason why the Church is against same-sex marriage. The real reason is rooted in the Natural Law.

In the marriage covenant we are to come together “as one flesh”. The marriage covenant is therefore consummated by sexual intercourse. In human physiology, the marital act is the only act which actually requires a male and female, to accomplish. For the purposes of procreation, at the moment of consummation a husband and wife are indeed “one flesh”. Unlike every other bodily function (respiration, digestion, etc.), procreation requires two persons to accomplish.

Even if the act is sterile (menopause, pregnancy, illness, lactation), the parties are still engaging in the physiological act of intercourse and of coming together as one flesh. In the case of sterile (for legitimate reasons) intercourse, it still carries out the unitive function and the two parties are still engaging in a natural physiological process even though that process is not naturally fertile at that moment.

There is no homosexual equivalent. All human physiological processes are designed to be either life-sustaining (breathing, drinking, eating), or life-creating (reproduction), and all are necessary to maintain the human race. The life-sustaining processes are self-sustaining (only need yourself), and the life-creating process requires two people.

Homosexual sex is neither life-creating nor life-sustaining. It’s only function is pleasure for those who find it pleasurable. A same-sex couple cannot “consummate” their relationship. It is a biological impossibility. If all humans only engaged in homosexual sex, the human race would die out. Same-sex activity is neither life-sustaining, nor life-creating. It serves an entirely hedonistic purpose, just as contracepted heterosexual sex serves an entirely hedonistic purpose.

Therefore a same-sex relationship can never be a marriage. At best it can be seen as an imitation of marriage, or an analogue to marriage.

But it is not, cannot and never can be a marriage, because two homosexuals cannot come together as “one flesh”. They can come into intimate physical contact, but it will never be as “one flesh”.

This also opens up a legal can of worms. In both the Church and in society, a marriage that has not been consummated can be declared null. Non-consummation is easy to define: it means sexual intercourse has not taken place.

How do you define non-consummation for homosexuals? Simply not having sex? What kind of sex? Homosexual activity can be a wide array of practices. One party can claim the relationship was consummated and the other claim it wasn’t based simply on sexual preference. It is clearly nonsensical and potentially a legal quagmire.

 

[chessmane4e5]

Lets see the church had Galileo locked up and confined to quarters (albeit nice ones, hence the comment in my post) so they put him away without charging him. So technically they harmed him, but didn’t harm him because they didn’t actually use a proceeding against him.

The Church did have him locked up, but not for the reasons most people think (which you were implying by saying the Church has been wrong in the past).

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

This article explains everything, I am not trying to hide or sugar coat anything. I always seek the truth, whether it be good or bad.

 

[chessmane4e5]

This is not at all the reason why the Church is against same-sex marriage. The real reason is rooted in the Natural Law.

My analogy was not meant to be a reason against gay marriage, but more to refute that idea that it is charitable to support Gay Marriage.

Your explanation is exactly the reason why we should not allow Gay Marriage. My analogy was to show how supporting gay marriage does not make sense.

I like the way you said things though, so I might quote you in the future

 

[estesbob]

The Church did have him locked up, but not for the reasons most people think (which you were implying by saying the Church has been wrong in the past).

catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

This article explains everything, I am not trying to hide or sugar coat anything. I always seek the truth, whether it be good or bad.

If Galileo had not presented his papar refering to the Pope as “Simplitico” and portraying him as a fool there probably would not have been a problem. After all Galileo was defening the Copernican theory. Copernicus was a catholic Priest who had presented his thesis 50 years earlier with no negative reactuon from the church.

 

[chessmane4e5]

If Galileo had not presented his paper referring to the Pope as “Simplitico” and portraying him as a fool there probably would not have been a problem. After all Galileo was defending the Copernican theory. Copernicus was a catholic Priest who had presented his thesis 50 years earlier with no negative reaction from the church.

Exactly. But people do not want to hear the truth, so they believe a lie.

 

[portarica]

If Galileo had not presented his papar refering to the Pope as “Simplitico” and portraying him as a fool there probably would not have been a problem. After all Galileo was defening the Copernican theory. Copernicus was a catholic Priest who had presented his thesis 50 years earlier with no negative reactuon from the church.

So are you saying the pope had Galileo locked up because he called the pope simplitico ?

Your simple statement of that as the reasoning ignores Galileo trying to follow the same steps as Copernicus. Galileo tried for years to get permission from Rome to publish his treatises, but he was constantly rejected and during the same time the heliocentric views of Copernicus were viewed by the church as close to heresy.

Galileo didn’t call the Pope a simpleton but instead wrote a treatise where the earth centric views were voiced by Simplitico.

The pope had him tried on heresy charges and confined to house arrest until Galileo died. Galileo’s name was not cleared up by the church 'til after he died.

Peace

 

[surritter]

Galileo was punished not explicitly for his astronomical theories, but for his disobedience. Yes, there is a difference.

 

[portarica]

Galileo was punished not explicitly for his astronomical theories, but for his disobedience. Yes, there is a difference.

Right, he said that the church astronomical holding were wrong (which was the truth).

But because he was told not to publish the truth,and insisted that what was true was true, he was locked up.

That’s even worse then being locked up for having suggested the earth revolves around the sun.

Peace

 

[chessmane4e5]

So are you saying the pope had Galileo locked up because he called the pope simplitico ?

Your simple statement of that as the reasoning ignores Galileo trying to follow the same steps as Copernicus. Galileo tried for years to get permission from Rome to publish his treatises, but he was constantly rejected and during the same time the heliocentric views of Copernicus were viewed by the church as close to heresy.

Galileo didn’t call the Pope a simpleton but instead wrote a treatise where the earth centric views were voiced by Simplitico.

The pope had him tried on heresy charges and confined to house arrest until Galileo died. Galileo’s name was not cleared up by the church 'til after he died.

Peace

You are also missing the FACT that Galileo had no PROOF of his theory. That he turned out to be right, is of no consequence to what we are discussing.

He wanted church approval, the Pope said no you don’t have proof.

He got all mad, cried like a baby, then called the Pope Simplitico.

The Church then, and only then, put him under house arrest.

If you do some research you will find it was the Scientific Community that wanted Galileo punished for his theory, not the Church. The Church could care less if the Earth was the center or the Sun was. As it turns out, neither are the center, so Galileo was ultimately wrong.

 

[OraLabora]

My analogy was not meant to be a reason against gay marriage, but more to refute that idea that it is charitable to support Gay Marriage.

Your explanation is exactly the reason why we should not allow Gay Marriage. My analogy was to show how supporting gay marriage does not make sense.

I like the way you said things though, so I might quote you in the future

Thanks. I agree with you that it is not charitable to support same-sex marriage. When this was being debated in Canada (we lost that one…) I wrote a letter to my member of parliament. We lost that battle in Canada, but I urge anyone where this is being considered, to write their elected representatives.

 

[portarica]

This also opens up a legal can of worms. In both the Church and in society, a marriage that has not been consummated can be declared null. Non-consummation is easy to define: it means sexual intercourse has not taken place.

How do you define non-consummation for homosexuals? Simply not having sex? What kind of sex? Homosexual activity can be a wide array of practices. One party can claim the relationship was consummated and the other claim it wasn’t based simply on sexual preference. It is clearly nonsensical and potentially a legal quagmire.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually your examples are nonsense. First sexual activity doesn’t necessarily confer validity.

In the catholic church there can be invalid marriages with intercourse, (annulled marriages with kids)

And valid marriages with unordered male and female people without intercourse being possible. For example injured Iraqi war veterans.

As for the gay marriage you are talking about , it won’t be a church one, so the people would get divorced and could come up with many reasons that are not akin to being in a legal quagmire.

A legal quagmire is having a marriage with multiple kids being annulled by the church, but the church has overcome those hurdles in the past. Have some confidence in the canon lawyers being able to handle most anything.

Peace

 

[estesbob]

Right, he said that the church astronomical holding were wrong (which was the truth).

But because he was told not to publish the truth,and insisted that what was true was true, he was locked up.

That’s even worse then being locked up for having suggested the earth revolves around the sun.

Peace

He wasnt told he couldnt publish the truth. He was told he had to present all sides of thre issue. He chose to mock the Pope when presenting the argument for an ecocentric solar system which is what go thim trouble.

Noen of this, of course, has any bearing on the morality of homosexual behavior.

 

[chessmane4e5]

He wasnt told he couldnt publish the truth. He was told he had to present all sides of thre issue. He chose to mock the Pope when presenting the argument for an ecocentric solar system which is what go thim trouble.

Noen of this, of course, has any bearing on the morality of homosexual behavior.

No it does not, but Portarica is trying to show that the church has been wrong in the past and so could be wrong in the future.

As already pointed out though, the Church only claims to be infallible with Faith and Morals, not science.