Homosexual marriage really wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CeaselessMedik
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CeaselessMedik said:
It seems to me that instead of going in with an open mind you’re going in with the idea that you KNOW what the Bible means and that no other interpretation could POSSIBLY be right, which is not a good mentality. I’m asking someone to show me WHY it’s wrong, not THAT it’s wrong.
Click to expand...
Catholics know Christ is truth. Why would one start from a point that contradicted truth? Seems illogical.

It would be like starting from a point that said 2+2=38. Why start from error?
 
Well of course they say that, and probably think it’s true. That doesn’t mean it is. There was a Puritan lady in colonial times that thought that God had told her she was among the “elect.” Just because she said so doesn’t mean it’s true, even though she might have believed it.

I also am appalled that some of you think being homosexual is wrong. It’s not always a choice, you know. With all the prejudice today, why would anyone CHOOSE to be homosexual? Maybe you’re referring to homosexual sexual relations, not just living together in a loving relationship. In that case, I might agree. That’s not what sex was designed for.

Also, can any of you honestly say that in the course of Church teachings no priest or Pope has EVER put their own views down as dogma?
 
CeaselessMedik said:
Well of course they say that, and probably think it’s true. That doesn’t mean it is. There was a Puritan lady in colonial times that thought that God had told her she was among the “elect.” Just because she said so doesn’t mean it’s true, even though she might have believed it.
Click to expand...
Truth is subjective and objective. If you want proof Christ founded one Church you may want to consider a new thread. Catholics “think” this is true because objectively it is true. Certain folks with SSA think homosexual acts are moral, but that does not make the acts moral. Objectively the acts are evil.
I also am appalled that some of you think being homosexual is wrong. It’s not always a choice, you know. With all the prejudice today, why would anyone CHOOSE to be homosexual? Maybe you’re referring to homosexual sexual relations, not just living together in a loving relationship. In that case, I might agree. That’s not what sex was designed for.
Click to expand...
Please consider reading the CCC and Church documents. That will clear up any confusion.
Also, can any of you honestly say that in the course of Church teachings no priest or Pope has EVER put their own views down as dogma?
Click to expand...
If you are asking if the Church can err in teaching faith and morals for our salvation the answer is no She never errors.
 
CeaselessMedik said:
I’ll download that mp3 and listen to it later. And no, I’m not trying to “goad” anyone. I’m just trying to figure out the real source behind some of the Church’s beliefs and tell which ones are human-made and therefore not as…important? I don’t know.

EDIT: the link points to a site without anything called “One Church.”
Click to expand...
Sorry Ceaseless! com, not org!

biblechristiansociety.com/ Look under downloadable MP3s. He has several talks - I love his conversion story, and have downloaded several of the other MP3s last night.

I would also like to recommend a CA booklet that deals with the beliefs of the Church, based on the Bible. I actually have similar books that deal with that too.

There’s nothing wrong with questioning. Sometimes things just don’t make ANY sense to us. It’s good that you are searching for the answers before just making up your mind without the facts.

Of course, I was an atheist for 25 years, so I can really understand where you are coming from.
 
CeaselessMedik said:
What about selling indulgences? That wasn’t an error?
Click to expand...
Selling - that was a terrible thing. However, indulgences still do exist.

May I ask how/why you think you’ve started to feel the Church is not the True Church, and that you aren’t really a Catholic? What was the trigger? Sometimes it might be easier to start there.

Pax tecum!
 
drafdog said:
It is devoutly to be hoped that homosexuals be encouraged to form such bonds for their own benefit and for the benefit of general society.
Click to expand...
No, it is devoutly hoped that those inflicted with homosexuality will choose to live celibate lives in accordance with God’s plan.
In that sense homosexual “marriage” is not wrong. It is perceived as wrong to call it “marriage.” We need a new word here.
Click to expand...
Good point. “Deviant Sexual Moral Disorder” is four words, not one. It is rather hard to distill that concept down to a single word, but I’ll keep trying. 👍
 
CeaselessMedik said:
Well of course they say that, and probably think it’s true. That doesn’t mean it is. There was a Puritan lady in colonial times that thought that God had told her she was among the “elect.” Just because she said so doesn’t mean it’s true, even though she might have believed it.

I also am appalled that some of you think being homosexual is wrong. It’s not always a choice, you know. With all the prejudice today, why would anyone CHOOSE to be homosexual? Maybe you’re referring to homosexual sexual relations, not just living together in a loving relationship. In that case, I might agree. That’s not what sex was designed for.

Also, can any of you honestly say that in the course of Church teachings no priest or Pope has EVER put their own views down as dogma?
Click to expand...
The issue of homosexual marriage goes to the natural law. That gives the “whys” – which Paul tells us should be obvious even to idolatrous barbarians.
 
The Church has and does uphold the dignity of every person. What the Church and every member of the church should do is be pro-person and anti-sin. You do note that there is a difference between the person and the sin, for you noted the following:
Maybe you’re referring to homosexual sexual relations, not just living together in a loving relationship. In that case, I might agree. That’s not what sex was designed for.
Click to expand...
So the sin is the homosexual sexual relations, and not the homosexual attraction, which is a temptation On this, you and the Church agree.

You also mentioned that sexual relations are wrong because that’s not what sex was designed for. The Church is consistent on this issue in every way as homosexuality, masturbation, artificial birth control, pornography, are all considered gravely sinful. Distorting the purpose of God’s creation is sinful.

What is marriage and it’s purpose? Was the purpose of marriage ever defined by Christ himself? The answer is yes and can be shown in Mark 10:1-9:
The Pharisees approached and asked, “Is it lawful for a husband to divorce his wife?” They were testing him.

He said to them in reply, “What did Moses command you?”

They replied, “Moses permitted him to write a bill of divorce and dismiss her.”

But Jesus told them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother (and be joined to his wife), and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”
Click to expand...
So from this, you can see that the purpose of marriage is more than just love, it’s about two becoming one flesh through the act of sexual intercourse between a male and a female.

Homosexual marriage is wrong because marriage was created by God “from the beginning” and distorting the purpose of God’s creation is sinful whether you distort the purpose of sex or whether you distort the purpose of marriage.

I hope this helps you.

-PTP
 
estesbob said:
Sure we do-the word is SIN
Click to expand...
We need a new word to apply to a monogamous, long term (life time), single sex relationships. Nowhere in my previous post did I say anything about sexual behaviour or activity. You and others have read that into my post when I specifically refrained from bringing that into it.
Do you have a dirty mind?

Matthew
 
I agree with you there, actually. But what’s to stop two celibate men loving each other and living celibate-ly together? And how does it hurt us to let them get similar tax benefits and whatnot in the secular sector?

Also, about the Church never making mistakes: I guess I was wrong about indulgences, sorry. What about this:
The Spanish empire in the Americas was carefully regulated to create societies subservient to the Spanish crown. Church establishment, the patronato real, meant that religious and political affairs were never clearly separated. In Cuba, however, lack of indigenous support restricted the Church to its primary role, to advise and assist the governor, and it did not acquire great wealth. Because the colonial population was chiefly made up of Spaniards or their descendants and slaves under their control, the island was rapidly inundated with missionaries, but this immigration had tapered off by the 17th century. Conflicts between Church and state were concerned primarily with the institution of slavery which the Church was instrumental in undermining. It not only provided the slaves with practical and religious instruction, but also guaranteed them free time and opportunity to work for wages and buy their freedom.
Click to expand...
Sure, it helped slaves, but a far as I can tell, it LET THEM BECOME SLAVES. It let slaves buy their freedom, but as far as I can find, didn’t make any motion to prevent them becoming slaves in the first place.
 
Ceaseless - I read all your posts and have concluded that your objections are far broader than simply marriage or even the Sacraments. Each post brings up another objection and there are no “sound bite” answers that can be given in a forum such as this.

If you are truly interested in answers, there are volumes addressing each your objections. However, your overall objection centers around the validity of the Scriptures and the authority given to the Catholic Church to interpret the Scriptures infallibly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Catholic Answers has documents online addressing those issues.

If you question the validity of the Scriptures, then all bets are off. We have no basis for discussion. So, this is the first thing that you need to contend with. As far as the Catholic Church’s authority to interpret the Scriptures, well, that is what all the debate is about with the 30,000+ Protestant faiths out there.

I hope you find the answers you are seeking.
 
drafdog said:
We need a new word to apply to a monogamous, long term (life time), single sex relationships.
Click to expand...
It is not a sin to be homosexual. It is a sin to engage in sexual acts outside a Sacramental marriage (which is between one man and one woman). However, truly chaste, non-sexual, “brotherly” relationships are common - in families, in monasteries, Christian communities, etc. These are fine. But, they are not and cannot be considered “marriage.”

Marriage is God’s means by which to exhibit His creative love. The primary purpose of marriage is to bring children into being - to bring new souls into being, which is an amazing idea when you really stop and think about it. In our selfish-minded society, this concept has been lost, because now it’s all about “me” and “my” relationships, and “my” fulfillment", and “my” desires, etc., etc. Two men cannot be married because they cannot have children. It’s not even a possibility. Do you know that a Sacramental marriage cannot take place if the man is impotent? Unless there is the ability to engage in the sexual expression of love with the openness to accept children, then there is no Sacramental marriage. An annulment (which means no Sacrament took place) can be granted if even one of the two refuse to accept children because this is a pre-requisite to marriage. You cannot marry in the Catholic Church if you refuse to accept children and if you deceive your spouse and the Church by agreeing to this during the wedding ceremony, that is grounds for an annulment - or a declaration that a Sacramental marriage did not take place.

So, there’s a lot more to it than affection and love between two people. Call it what you want, but sexual or chaste, same-sex relationships can never be considered Sacramental marriage in the eyes of the Church.
 
Gotcha. So then would the LEGAL definition of “marriage” be okay to apply to two gay people? So they could get married by law and get benefits and stuff but not have sex?
 
CeaselessMedik said:
Gotcha. So then would the LEGAL definition of “marriage” be okay to apply to two gay people? So they could get married by law and get benefits and stuff but not have sex?
Click to expand...
Theoretically I wouldn’t have a problem with this. However, in reality there are probably very few celibate relationships like that. And, I do have a problem with the legal implications of gay marriage apart from legal recognition and legal benefits in light of the fact that most gay couples equate it to conventional marriage, which includes sexual activity, adopting children, etc.
 
drafdog said:
The problem with this issue is that no one has a word for a life time, monogamous, single sex relationship. The only word we have which comes close is “marriage” and that raises hackles on too many people. The social scientists agree that long-term (life time) monogamous relationships result in lower stress levels, better general health, longer lifespans and happier people. It is devoutly to be hoped that homosexuals be encouraged to form such bonds for their own benefit and for the benefit of general society. In that sense homosexual “marriage” is not wrong. It is perceived as wrong to call it “marriage.” We need a new word here.

Matthew
Click to expand...
This is definitely not what the Church teaches. Homosexual relations are intrinsically disordered are a grave sin under any circumstances so whether it is civil unions, domestic partnerships, or gay marriage, it still is wrong!! Marriage is only acceptable when two people of opposite gender enter into a sacramental life-long relationship that is open to life. Period.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top