Gay Marriage

[shelby_sun]

The problem is, a gay union is an intrinsically disordered living arrangement, into which no child should be placed for care.

So are many of the foster homes child must live in. I am sorry, I cannot seeing a child in foster care over giving it to two hard working, decent individuals that could love and provide a wonderful home and family for them.

That to me is like saying you would not break into and possible destroy someone’s home knowing there was a baby dying inside because that would be breaking the law.

Do you really think the majority of children these days are living in wonderful, happy, healthy homes just because they have a mother and a father.

I can tell you right now that I know of more than a few long time gay couples that I would much rather raise my children than have the raised in the home I grew up in with my mother and father. No doubt about it!

I am in no way saying the Church should change it stance on this issue, but the laws in the US do allow it.

 

[JimG]

So are many of the foster homes child must live in. I am sorry, I cannot seeing a child in foster care over giving it to two hard working, decent individuals that could love and provide a wonderful home and family for them.

That to me is like saying you would not break into and possible destroy someone’s home knowing there was a baby dying inside because that would be breaking the law.

Do you really think the majority of children these days are living in wonderful, happy, healthy homes just because they have a mother and a father.

I can tell you right now that I know of more than a few long time gay couples that I would much rather raise my children than have the raised in the home I grew up in with my mother and father. No doubt about it!

I am in no way saying the Church should change it stance on this issue, but the laws in the US do allow it.

You seem to take the position that foster care is itself always an intrinsic evil. It is not, whereas homosexual actions are. Many children live in dysfunctional families through circumstances not of their making. The difference is, the law should not choose an intrinsically disordered living arrangement for them. There are better possibilities.

 

[Kitcat1968]

You seem to take the position that foster care is itself always an intrinsic evil. It is not, whereas homosexual actions are. Many children live in dysfunctional families through circumstances not of their making. The difference is, the law should not choose an intrinsically disordered living arrangement for them. There are better possibilities.

So…the law should use catholic teachings as a blueprint? That’s about as un-American as it can get.

There is overwhelming evidence, mainly through personal testimony, that children who are raised by two parents of the same gender grow into adults that never were and never have been deprived of anything. There is also zero credible evidence suggesting otherwise.

My grandson and his partner entered into a civil marriage and have since adopted two children who are the happiest, smartest, well-mannered children I’ve ever seen (admittedly, I’m a little bias as they’re my great grandchildren ). I’ve got a granddaughter who, along with her husband, completely neglected the children they made and had to placed with my daughter.

Whether you’re gay or straight doesn’t predetermine your parenting skills or competency. What matters is that you put your children’s needs before your own and you love them unconditionally. I’m sure there are plenty of gay parents who aren’t ideal, but that’s not a reflection on homosexuals; it is a reflection on society in general having children before they’re mature enough to take on the duties and responsibilities of caring for a child.

All this hogwash about gay couples being unfit to raise children will always continue, but actions speak louder than words.

 

[shelby_sun]

All very true.

 

[shelby_sun]

You seem to take the position that foster care is itself always an intrinsic evil. It is not, whereas homosexual actions are. Many children live in dysfunctional families through circumstances not of their making. The difference is, the law should not choose an intrinsically disordered living arrangement for them. There are better possibilities.

Who are you to say that a gay couple is have sex while they are raising a child. You must believe that many married couple who no long want children are abstaining from sex but the same cannot be true for gay.

My husband has worked in a major crime lab for over twenty years so I know all too well what is happen children in this country everyday by so call appropriate caretaker, and think you would be shocked to learn what we know. Whether gay couples raise a child is not close to the top of the serious events that need to be dealt with in this country and around the world.

Like I said I know many gay people that make “good practicing” Catholic look like the biggest sinners in the world.

 

[Rau]

I do not believe in gay marriage in the Church nor do I think the Church should ever change their position on this matter. I consider them “civil unions” under the law. There are many laws I don’t agree with, and many more I would fight before this one.

Not sure what Church has to do with your point. I read you to be saying that you are against gay marriage and ok with civil unions. Me too. The latter is not intrinsically sexual, and ought to be applicable to arbitrary persons, eg to unmarried sisters, and provide legal benefits appropriate to the needs of 2 people seeking to live together and care for each other.

 

[shelby_sun]

Not sure what Church has to do with your point. I read you to be saying that you are against gay marriage and ok with civil unions. Me too. The latter is not intrinsically sexual, and ought to be applicable to arbitrary persons, eg to unmarried sisters, and provide legal benefits appropriate to the needs of 2 people seeking to live together and care for each other.

Sorry I just didn’t want some poster to think I want the Catholic Church to all of a sudden bless these unions, but they should bless the individual as Catholics. I see the unions as a legal issue.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sorry I just didn’t want some poster to think I want the Catholic Church to all of a sudden bless these unions, but they should bless the individual as Catholics. I see the unions as a legal issue.

This is a somewhat incoherent position since sin is, according to Catholic teaching, separation from God. Your position amounts to support for gay individuals to have their temporal desires at the cost of potential eternal separation from God.

If you don’t want the Church to bless these unions, the question is, Why not? If such unions or engaging in same sex behaviour REALLY places these individuals in eternal jeopardy then concern for them and their ultimate well-being ought to, at least, give you pause in terms of the harm they are doing to themselves. Either you care about that harm and sparing individuals from being so harmed or you don’t think they are truly causing potential harm to themselves. Which is it? Consistency?

The question you need to ask yourself is whether you really do understand the nature of sin and separation from God and what that means in the long term. If sin is harmful to those you love, then concern for them ought to make you think twice about supporting or endorsing sinful behaviour. Remember that this is not a matter of “what people think” (even the majority in modern times) but of what truly is the case when all is said and done - which may differ greatly from what impertinent moderns think they have authority to change at whim.

 

[Rau]

Sorry I just didn’t want some poster to think I want the Catholic Church to all of a sudden bless these unions, but they should bless the individual as Catholics. I see the unions as a legal issue.

So long as they are not “branded” marriage or deemed the same.

 

[Rau]

This is a somewhat incoherent position since sin is, according to Catholic teaching, separation from God. Your position amounts to support for gay individuals to have their temporal desires at the cost of potential eternal separation from God.

If you don’t want the Church to bless these unions, the question is, Why not? If such unions or engaging in same sex behaviour REALLY places these individuals in eternal jeopardy then concern for them and their ultimate well-being ought to, at least, give you pause in terms of the harm they are doing to themselves. Either you care about that harm and sparing individuals from being so harmed or you don’t think they are truly causing potential harm to themselves. Which is it? Consistency?

The question you need to ask yourself is whether you really do understand the nature of sin and separation from God and what that means in the long term. If sin is harmful to those you love, then concern for them ought to make you think twice about supporting or endorsing sinful behaviour. Remember that this is not a matter of “what people think” (even the majority in modern times) but of what truly is the case when all is said and done - which may differ greatly from what impertinent moderns think they have authority to change at whim.

Civil Unions ought not have ANYTHING to do with sex.

 

[JimG]

From the USCCB website:
“Marriage is a unique good in itself. Nothing compares to the unique partnership of husband and wife, who through their sexual difference form a life-giving communion. No relationship between persons of the same sex can be the same as that between a man and a woman, nor should they ever be treated as analogous to marriage in any way. Thus, legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” that claim equivalent or analogous status to marriage are wrong and unjust, harmful both to the person and to society. Legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” should never be treated as analogous to marriage.
Source

 

[Rau]

From the USCCB website:
“Marriage is a unique good in itself. Nothing compares to the unique partnership of husband and wife, who through their sexual difference form a life-giving communion. No relationship between persons of the same sex can be the same as that between a man and a woman, nor should they ever be treated as analogous to marriage in any way. Thus, legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” that claim equivalent or analogous status to marriage are wrong and unjust, harmful both to the person and to society. Legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” should never be treated as analogous to marriage.
Source

Agreed.

 

[ccrichton]

There’s more than one kind of love.

You are right. The new commandment was to love one another. The question is how.

Jesus was pretty specific about his views on marriage. If you accept Jesus as the Son of God - God on Earth - then his word is the Way. We are all to love one another. But the “kind” of love depends on the relationship and the circumstances. The rules don’t just go out the door due to our wants. And more importantly we don’t make the rules.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

From the USCCB website:
“Marriage is a unique good in itself. Nothing compares to the unique partnership of husband and wife, who through their sexual difference form a life-giving communion. No relationship between persons of the same sex can be the same as that between a man and a woman, nor should they ever be treated as analogous to marriage in any way. Thus, legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” that claim equivalent or analogous status to marriage are wrong and unjust, harmful both to the person and to society. Legal categories such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships” should never be treated as analogous to marriage.

I will add to that the position and rationale of the USCCB on same sex parenting:

The Gift of Children

Why is a child meant to have both a father and a mother?

The fact is, every single child, without exception, does have a mother and a father. Sexual difference between a husband and wife is necessary to conceive a child. But its importance does not end there. Men and women bring unique gifts to the shared task of parenting, that is, of fathering and mothering. Only a woman can be a mother. Only a man can be a father. Each contributes in a distinct and unique way to the formation of children, helping them to understand their identity as male or female. Respecting a child’s dignity means affirming his or her need for – and right to – a mother and a father.

What about single parents? These families lack a father or a mother, just like households headed by two men or two women.

A child is meant to be raised by his or her own, married father and mother. But there are times when, due to family tragedies or other unfortunate circumstances, this ideal cannot be realized. The Church acknowledges the difficulties faced by single parents and seeks to support them in their often heroic response to meet the needs of their children. There is a big difference, however, between dealing with the unintended reality of single parenthood and approving the formation of “alternative families” that deliberately deprive a child of a father or a mother, such as arrangements headed by two men or two women. Undesired single parenthood can still witness to the importance of sexual difference by acknowledging the challenges faced by single parents and their children due to the lack of a father or mother. In contrast, arrangements of two men or two women are incapable of such witness and present motherhood and fatherhood as disposable. These arrangements of themselves contradict the conjugal and generative reality of marriage and are never acceptable. Children deserve to have their need for a father and a mother respected and protected in law.

Aren’t children adaptable to many different family forms?

While children can be strong and resilient, it is false to pretend that they are unaffected by their family’s structure. Various studies have demonstrated that children suffer from divorce and from lacking a father or a mother. The push for “new family arrangements” overlooks or denies the child’s fundamental need for a mother and a father. Moms and dads matter, and the needs of children must not take a backseat to the satisfaction of adult desires.

Don’t studies show that children do fine with two “moms” or two “dads”?

Actually, the conclusions of studies that look at children raised by two men or two women are mixed, at best. For example, some of the studies suffer from small sample sizes or view traits such as “flexible gender identity” as positive. It is also important to remember that social science is not equipped to capture the whole of reality. The truths of human nature should be illumined by good science (and the Church enthusiastically encourages this), but such truths do not stand trial to social science, as if they will be disproved. At the end of the day, no study should ignore the dignity of the child and the right of every child to a mother and a father.

What about adoption?

Adoption is a generous response to a child who is in need or abandoned. Mothers and fathers who adopt children witness to the truth that every child is a gift. However, keep in mind that adoption, guardianship, and foster care take their form from natural generation (a father and a mother conceiving, giving birth to, and raising a child) and should never contradict the conjugal and generative reality of marriage. In other words, fathers and mothers matter to adopted kids, too. Placing a child in the care of two men or two women may be well-intentioned, but ultimately deprives the child of that which best serves his or her interests – a mother and a father.

It seems some Catholics would readily choose legal positivism over the moral and natural law prescribed by the Catholic Church, out of loyalty to family members and close friends who are in gay “marriages” and into gay parenting. This is parallel to endorsing nepotism in government because their kin has something to gain, right or wrong. They try to convince by using the worst scenario of traditional marriages and parenting against the best scenario of gay “marriage” and parenting, as if gay “marriage” and parenting have already passed the test of time. As if the Catholic Church formulated her teachings on marriage and formation of the family in willy-nilly fashion or over just a generation or two!

Pope Francis labelled gay adoption as discrimination of children. He also called laws allowing gay adoption a destructive pretension against the plan of God, calling if a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.

Raising children is more than providing meals and a bed, more than the absence of physical abuse or violence.
,

 

[shelby_sun]

This is a somewhat incoherent position since sin is, according to Catholic teaching, separation from God. Your position amounts to support for gay individuals to have their temporal desires at the cost of potential eternal separation from God.

If you don’t want the Church to bless these unions, the question is, Why not? If such unions or engaging in same sex behaviour REALLY places these individuals in eternal jeopardy then concern for them and their ultimate well-being ought to, at least, give you pause in terms of the harm they are doing to themselves. Either you care about that harm and sparing individuals from being so harmed or you don’t think they are truly causing potential harm to themselves. Which is it? Consistency?

The question you need to ask yourself is whether you really do understand the nature of sin and separation from God and what that means in the long term. If sin is harmful to those you love, then concern for them ought to make you think twice about supporting or endorsing sinful behaviour. Remember that this is not a matter of “what people think” (even the majority in modern times) but of what truly is the case when all is said and done - which may differ greatly from what impertinent moderns think they have authority to change at whim.

I am sorry it is incoherent to you but that is because you are assuming that these couple are sleeping together which would be separating themselves from God. Are telling me that you truly believe that there are that many Catholic married heterosexual couples that are abstaining or using NFP if they are done having children; that they are not having sex for pure pleasure or closeness, which I believe still goes against Church teachings or has that changed? I have never known of anyone of the people I went to Catholic school with that did either one of those. But if you believe their are some that do, then you can surely believe their are gay couples that do also. Who are you to just assume anyone is sleeping with anyone just because they live together. You judge them will at knowledge of what goes on in their life. I had to Aunts that never left each others side. They never married and I have no idea what they did when I wasn’t around, but I am sure that their were people that questioned their lives together. That is not right.

I don’t believe the Church should have to change their teachings for anyone unless those with more wisdom and grace than I have feel it is the best interest and welling for Catholics as a whole. Nor do I just assume someone is a sinner or living a life that separates them from God without a longtime personal relationship with them.

I will say this yet again on this site, as our priest (our married priest) said on Easter Sunday. We first need to fix ourselves, as we are all sinners, before we go around trying to fix all the other sinners of the world. And because we are mostly likely to sin everyday by not liking someone, being rude, having negative thoughts or words towards others, extra, who should be to busy righting are own wrongs than focusing on others.

When I hear people say we are to go out teach others, those are the people that don’t want to deal with the sinner they are themselves. Do you even know a gay couple? Do you ask them if they are sleeping together? Or are you just assuming?

 

[JimG]

It is not a question of whether a same sex couple is having some variety of sex or not. As noted in post #154, the Catholic position is that same sex unions should never be treated as analogous to marriage in any way. The problem is in the relationship itself.

There might be same sex roommates who are nothing but roommates. No one would surmise they were having sex. But neither would one recommend them as adoptive parents, just because the living situation is not that of a family. With a same sex couple who are pretending to be married, having sex is not the issue. The relationship is the issue. One does not treat such a union as equivalent to a family unit.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am sorry it is incoherent to you but that is because you are assuming that these couple are sleeping together which would be separating themselves from God. Are telling me that you truly believe that there are that many Catholic married heterosexual couples that are abstaining or using NFP if they are done having children; that they are not having sex for pure pleasure or closeness, which I believe still goes against Church teachings or has that changed? I have never known of anyone of the people I went to Catholic school with that did either one of those. But if you believe their are some that do, then you can surely believe their are gay couples that do also. Who are you to just assume anyone is sleeping with anyone just because they live together. You judge them will at knowledge of what goes on in their life. I had to Aunts that never left each others side. They never married and I have no idea what they did when I wasn’t around, but I am sure that their were people that questioned their lives together. That is not right.

I don’t believe the Church should have to change their teachings for anyone unless those with more wisdom and grace than I have feel it is the best interest and welling for Catholics as a whole. Nor do I just assume someone is a sinner or living a life that separates them from God without a longtime personal relationship with them.

Again, you have lost me.

There is a difference between saying…

1. Unjust killing of innocent human beings is wrong, and
2. Joe acted unjustly because he murdered an innocent human being.

…just as there is a difference between:

1. Engaging in homosexual activity is disordered, and
2. Joe is engaging in homosexual activity.

In the case of 1) I don’t need to have any particular knowledge of anyone’s actual behaviour to conclude that the murder of innocent human persons is morally wrong. That is an entirely different issue from knowing about individuals who kill others under mitigating circumstances, mental issues or have extraordinary burdens to carry that may have made them act immorally.

Even in the case of 2) it is entirely appropriate to draw a moral conclusion about Joe’s act purely on the basis of the act itself.

Likewise, a conclusion about the moral status of homosexual behaviour can be made quite independently of whether any homosexuals exist or are personal acquaintances. One does not depend upon the other. The moral rightness of murder is not affected merely because a murderer happens to be a good friend of yours. That serves only to bias the moral judgement.

I will say this yet again on this site, as our priest (our married priest) said on Easter Sunday. We first need to fix ourselves, as we are all sinners, before we go around trying to fix all the other sinners of the world. And because we are mostly likely to sin everyday by not liking someone, being rude, having negative thoughts or words towards others, extra, who should be to busy righting are own wrongs than focusing on others.

When I hear people say we are to go out teach others, those are the people that don’t want to deal with the sinner they are themselves. Do you even know a gay couple? Do you ask them if they are sleeping together? Or are you just assuming?

By your reasoning, someone who has, in the past, murdered another person would be committed to promoting murder and teaching his children that murder is permissible or at least refrain from speaking about the wrongness of murder because he has committed murder in the past and would be hypocritical making it out to be wrong when he has not righted the wrong he did in the past - obviously he cannot bring back the dead.

Your logic is utterly misconceived.

I could be a smoker (or sinner) who clearly knows smoking (or sinning) is bad and try to clearly express that correct understanding of reality. Doing so does not make the person a hypocrite unless there is intent to deceive or profit from the deception.

A crack addict who fully realizes the depth of his anguished situation is not a hypocrite for warning others about the dangers of crack use. A bigger hypocrite, in fact, might be someone who has never tried crack but convinces others to use it because he will profit enormously from their addiction to it, even though he himself is not even tempted to use it.

The way I see it is that we are all addicted to sin. Like a bunch of drug addicts if we merely talk each other into continued sin we do no service to anyone. To say, rather, “You know, what is happening here is wrong and does not benefit anyone,” is at least a beginning of the realization that addiction (sin) is a dead end. Of course, there will be those who continue to be enamoured by sin, and do not want to give it up, who will protest with, “Who are you to judge?” The question to ask, however, is if those protestors really have an interest in the welfare of others in mind when they promote the “keep sinning” and “don’t be bothered by those who judge” attitude.

 

[shelby_sun]

Again, you have lost me.

There is a difference between saying…

1. Unjust killing of innocent human beings is wrong, and
2. Joe acted unjustly because he murdered an innocent human being.

…just as there is a difference between:

1. Engaging in homosexual activity is disordered, and
2. Joe is engaging in homosexual activity.

In the case of 1) I don’t need to have any particular knowledge of anyone’s actual behaviour to conclude that the murder of innocent human persons is morally wrong. That is an entirely different issue from knowing about individuals who kill others under mitigating circumstances, mental issues or have extraordinary burdens to carry that may have made them act immorally.

Even in the case of 2) it is entirely appropriate to draw a moral conclusion about Joe’s act purely on the basis of the act itself.

Likewise, a conclusion about the moral status of homosexual behaviour can be made quite independently of whether any homosexuals exist or are personal acquaintances. One does not depend upon the other. The moral rightness of murder is not affected merely because a murderer happens to be a good friend of yours. That serves only to bias the moral judgement.

By your reasoning, someone who has, in the past, murdered another person would be committed to promoting murder and teaching his children that murder is permissible or at least refrain from speaking about the wrongness of murder because he has committed murder in the past and would be hypocritical making it out to be wrong when he has not righted the wrong he did in the past - obviously he cannot bring back the dead.

Your logic is utterly misconceived.

I could be a smoker (or sinner) who clearly knows smoking (or sinning) is bad and try to clearly express that correct understanding of reality. Doing so does not make the person a hypocrite unless there is intent to deceive or profit from the deception.

A crack addict who fully realizes the depth of his anguished situation is not a hypocrite for warning others about the dangers of crack use. A bigger hypocrite, in fact, might be someone who has never tried crack but convinces others to use it because he will profit enormously from their addiction to it, even though he himself is not even tempted to use it.

The way I see it is that we are all addicted to sin. Like a bunch of drug addicts if we merely talk each other into continued sin we do no service to anyone. To say, rather, “You know, what is happening here is wrong and does not benefit anyone,” is at least a beginning of the realization that addiction (sin) is a dead end. Of course, there will be those who continue to be enamoured by sin, and do not want to give it up, who will protest with, “Who are you to judge?” The question to ask, however, is if those protestors really have an interest in the welfare of others in mind when they promote the “keep sinning” and “don’t be bothered by those who judge” attitude.

It is misconceived and understandable to you. Let us keep to the subject on hand instead of going off on lame examples to manipulate your position.

I would bet that the majority of those that have posted on this discuss do not agree with me but that they do understand what I am saying.

1. You are automatically assuming that a gay couple is having physical relations, which you simply do not know. Homosexuality is not a sin. So if a gay couple, in a legal union or not, raise a child with no discussion of their sexuality, and no physical relationship, why is that a sin.

2.If you want to argue that the Church sees every child must have a mother and a father to be a “whole” person, than I need to leave the Church.

At the Catholic grade school I went to several went on to have severe issues such as drug and alcohol addiction, anorexia, teen pregnancy, six were extremely severe, three simply should not be alive. All but one came from a broken family. The other had a mother and father who were very close and stayed married until they died. I can give you many more examples from my Catholic high school.

Of course, the Church needs to take this stance on marriage, but it needs to start thinking about these children who have no mother and fathers. Single people whether gay or not our fully capable of giving a child more than food and shelter. They are capable of giving them a
great deal of love and extended family

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is misconceived and understandable to you. Let us keep to the subject on hand instead of going off on lame examples to manipulate your position.

I would bet that the majority of those that have posted on this discuss do not agree with me but that they do understand what I am saying.

1. You are automatically assuming that a gay couple is having physical relations, which you simply do not know. Homosexuality is not a sin. So if a gay couple, in a legal union or not, raise a child with no discussion of their sexuality, and no physical relationship, why is that a sin.

Then there is no reason to call it a marriage precisely because marital relations are not an aspect of the “civil union.” The point being that your perspective basically makes “gay marriage” a non-issue by depicting the union as a pragmatic one set up for the benefit of fostering children. In effect, it is a child welfare society made up of two individuals who happen to be of the same gender. As an alternative to child welfare institutions, the proposal has warrant. As a replacement for the optimal institution of a good marriage, it doesn’t.

Your position tends to lose its appeal when gay couples move towards the creation of children using IVF technology and pursue the option of cutting off the biological parent for the purpose of tailor-making their own family. This is no longer an alternative to child welfare but becomes a faux marriage that does seek to undermine the conjugal perspective by venturing into the area of propagating new life.

 

[Durnford]

Sexuality is not monolithic. I believe it’s fluid and depending on one’s preference should not be reduced to labels and categories to live up to human beings need to control and compartmentalise everything. Why can’t a man sleep with a woman just because he had sex with another man yesterday? Why can’t a woman marry a man all because she has been dating women her entire life? Whether or not s/he is in denial about whom s/he is it’s their choice. Let people be the drivers of their carriages to self discovery. You cannot advocate pro choice and in the same breathe preach moral conservative principles that limit some else’s choice to be who they are.

What’s wrong with people falling for people instead of gender types?

This little diatribe was recently posted in a blog I came across about how wonderful the gay lifestyle is. I think it sums up everything that is wrong with the whole gay agenda.