Homosexual marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter FireFromHeaven
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FireFromHeaven said:
I used to be something of a cafeteria catholic. Over this year I have grown to agree with all of the vaticans teachings. Except for one. I just can’t understand why Homosexuals can’t be married. Why is this?
Click to expand...
But they can be married. To a person of the opposite sex. Who is not already married. And eligible to be married in the Church (you were speaking of Church weddings, yes?). And who has gone with that person through whatever preliminaries are required by the state (blood test, citizenship requirements) and Church (pre-Cana classes - learning what a Catholic Sacramental marriage is). And who is old enough legally. That’s a lot of things, but marriage is important and treated as such (though maybe less so all the time these days).

I know what you are saying of course. Why can’t it be … since some people want it and
you don’t see much harm in it … and “perhaps there’s some harm in its denial”.

Well, this is a new thing. You won’t find any “gay married couples” celebrating their 50th anniversaries this year. Or 45th. Or 40th. Or 35th. Or 30th. Or 25th. Or 20th. Or 15th. Or 10th. Are there any 5th yet?

So … never mind the Church ***which holds Matrimony to be holy and a Sacrament. *** Why hasn’t it ever existed before? And how did people ever do without it (so well for so long that you’d be pressed to find the subject mentioned specifically as late as the 1990s). The first time I heard of the concept (which of course didn’t exist in reality except as a “concept launch”) was during the time of the 2000 US Presidential Election - when a case was put forth in Massachusetts.

There may have been cases before I heard of them.

Short answer: Homosexual sex acts are a sin.

Most of the rules and laws in the Bible, and in the Church, and in civil law … have to do with prohibitions of types of Heterosexual sex, but because marriage is by its nature a union of opposite sex heterosexuals … and a union that can be a sacrament … some nice people sometimes go “hey … unfair … what about …?”

And it’s nice that those folks care about justice and their neighbors … but it’s just not going to happen … because elements are missing to MAKE it a sacrament (like many of the other elements posted above). And because … the … consummation of the marriage (necessary in all marriages or they can be annulled for the lack of it) would be a sinful between two males - besides not being marital consummation - and an impossibility between two women, so for the Church the question is moot. And the answer is Never. Of course not!

But if a measure of* equality* makes one feel better - the Church does not marry every heterosexual couple that asks. Some of these too are denied. No state blood test? :nope: No can do. She’s your half-sister? Sorry.

“It” is probably going to “happen” (or has happened?) in civil law somewhere. I can’t keep up with the news there’s so MUCH of it on the subject.

But don’t look for the Church to sanction it. Rebellious acts notwithstanding - (in the news we hear of female priests being ordained and claiming legitimacy in the Catholic Church for instance. But they are not licit).

Similarly we might see a ***“Catholic Church” *** (not) somewhere have a mock ceremony that looks like the real deal … but though the press will be there and pictures will be taken … the Sacrament won’t be there, nor the Church sanction, nor God’s grace). Except maybe the “black grace” of repentance – calling the offenders back into the “saving grace” of Christ through reconciliation (and abandonment of the sin of course).

I don’t feel like posting the scriptures that deal with the subject now. Or the Catechism verses *(not that these aren’t good … it’s just that I’ve got my own sins to repair and better things to do than post the rather strong warnings against those practices here and now).
*
I will be pleasantly surprised if we DON’T see the Church getting sued over a perceived “denial” of the Sacrament to a “same sex couple” and “irreparable damages”. The plaintiffs will win if they have the right lawyer and argue it in the right court I fear. And monies that should go to Catholic School teachers, or Catholic Hospitals, or many other good projects will go to … the plaintiffs. :mad: Probably with a sympathetic press calling it “a historic reversal of centuries of injustice” or some such nonsense.

This artificial crisis doesn’t belong on anyone’s front burner in my opinion. And while I don’t like to see people pick on others (and I have seen … some people victimized by people out of the blue for reasons I can’t fathom) … this political push is nothing like that.

Unless we count the Church as the victim, picked on because it lives out our faith truly.
 
FireFromHeaven said:
I understand it’s truth and that I should accept it but I can’t. I can’t deny someone something I can have just because they got put together differently. I understand that they should live chastly. But what about those who don’t? The ones who marry as best they can? Who love one another? How can I believe that by so doing they have damned themselves to hell?
Click to expand...
You seem to be a very caring person. Which is VERY good.
Rest easy. God loves them more than you do. But we can’t sin. Or commit sin and call it good. Or step out in traffic and not get hurt (California analogy … pedestrians have the right of way … but if you didn’t look, and got hit … it wouldn’t be God’s fault or the state’s … or even the guy that hit you since he was presuming sane actions from an adult who should know better).

The Church isn’t doing people wrong. It’s trying to help them to heaven. Indulging a child in a wrong action might feel good but it doesn’t make for a good parent. Heaven will be better than breaking wise laws … even if there is a thrill to it at the time. And becoming a good man or woman … sooner or later … means saying ‘no’ to our worse or selfish impulses, even the strong ones. I don’t do that so well myself that I’m needing to make another class of sinner a whipping boy (or girl) … a scapegoat - when in reality, we are together in this life and have different destructive temptations.

The fact that this is the only problem you have with the Church (it is an issue sounded a lot on the media these days for some reason), is kind of neat. It sounds like the Church has answered some of your questions in the past. Trust her. Welcome aboard. And keep your heart for fairness and justice and love of neighbor (even if this particular case is one in which an admirable appeal for another group is – let me call it – misplaced generosity (with side effects that make its adoption impossible for the Church to do … in charity or in wisdom).
 
I have read all five pages of this discussion, and although I agree and accept completely the teachings of the Church, I can’t explain them any better than the previous posters have. I just want to compliment all of the participants of this discussion on the high level on which it is being conducted. This is a very difficult and contentious subject these days, and this discussion could have easily disintegrated into name-calling and insults. I want to thank all of you for the respect that you have shown each other. This thread is a great example of the charity and respect that makes these forums possible.
 
Marysann said:
I have read all five pages of this discussion, and although I agree and accept completely the teachings of the Church, I can’t explain them any better than the previous posters have. I just want to compliment all of the participants of this discussion on the high level on which it is being conducted. This is a very difficult and contentious subject these days, and this discussion could have easily disintegrated into name-calling and insults. I want to thank all of you for the respect that you have shown each other. This thread is a great example of the charity and respect that makes these forums possible.
Click to expand...
What beautiful thoughts Marysann. Bless us all. Not just on this topic - but for all of our brothers and sisters struggling with something hard. May God bless you with heroism, fortitude, peace, or whatever you need to do the right things - as we all should - on the road to HIM. 🙂
 
I think the main reason it has played out so well is because of the individual who questioned!

They asked an honest question with a sincere heart…that permits healthy dialog and understanding!

I’m very thankful and I’ve learned a couple things too!
 
Good morning. :)What you said on heaven I believe to be true. But why is homosexuality a mortal sin classed up there with murder and suicide? What was the Churchs reasoning behind this?
 
I think you are making some pretty rough judgment calls on the church in all of this:

the church is not saying people are going to hell for loving, that homosexuality is on the same level as murder etc etc .

It does teach that it is disordered. It CAN be a mortal sin if the act is done (like with ANY sin including telling a serious lie, or taking communion in the state of mortal sin knowingly or choosing to look at heterosexual pornography with full consent of the will etc etc)
  • with full consent of the will
  • with full knowledge of knowing what they’re doing
  • and if it is of serious issue
 
So in other words…in a spiritual sense (although either one may be able to do more or less damage to the individual/individuals/society)

It is on the same footing as if I told a very serious lie knowing FULLY that what I was doing is wrong and that I had FULL consent of my will ( ex: i told the lie of my own accord…not becuase I had a gun to my head )
 
Sorry if I seemed harsh towards the Church. I got into apologetics through Jack chick, CARM.org and Jesus is savior. Then what about my atheist friend? She doesn’t believe in God would she be sinning mortally?
 
lol.

Your athiest friend.

I find most athiests (most) … are very wounded (or are souls that question everything which can be very healthy) and are not fully “athiest”

You know, the spiritual life is all about a personal relationship with your God. It’s very person and between that person and God. And not every circumstance is the same. You know what separates the Christian faith from muslim, hindu and all the other main faiths ??? In all the other faiths …man is searching for God…but in our Christian faith…God is searching for man! God takes EVERY soul (and as I stated before…its’ Gods will that “all men be saved”) where it stands in their life situation …what they know, what they have come to understand about the world around them through no fault of their own, situations in which God can manifest Himself to them…He works with them from where they are . HE LOVES THEM MORE THAN YOU LOVE THEM…and loves them more than they loves themselves which is why He wants them to come to know truth and to grow …which is why the church , his body, wishes and works for the same! God, nor we , don’t want them living in the unfullfilled space they find themselves.
 
I can guarentee you … you can find “athiests” in heaven…if it is through no fault of their own that they live the way they do. If they have any sense they are wrong…or that the’res more calling to them…they have the obligation to search and attempt to come to grow and change.
 
Ok Michael finally how should this be applied in politics? Should we allow civil marriages for those atheists and non Christians like meltzer who believe it is ok as long as they don’t force us to recognize them?
 
Actually CaptFun I think this started in the 90s. Before that though homosexuality was punishable with death at least from what I read.
 
Well Fire, politics isn’t really my forte…

I do know this…whatever they are having…it’s NOT a marriage…it is something else. I have no issues in the state allowing economics help to them (through taxes and stuff like that ) if two people decide to live together…but I think that should be offered then to ANY two who wish to live together.

I DONT want to see pastors/priests being forced to acknowledge/“marry” these individuals! I think that would be grossly sinful!

If someone wants to go and have some sort of sybolic ceremony with a same sex individul, an animal, a rock , chair…what have you…who are we to stop them. But the term marriage and all the benefits applied to that most priceless and special condition of life should be subject to a valid marriage alone.
 
FireFromHeaven said:
On it not being natural. From what I remember around 30% of animals practice Homosexuality. What other reasons are there?
Click to expand...
“Not natural” doesn’t mean “not occurring in nature.” Otherwise nothing we could think of would be unnatural and therefore nothing we could possibly do would be immoral.

“Not natural” means “not consistent with human nature.” God created the world and saw that it was good, so the world is good just the way God created it. God created man as a physical being with sexual complementarity naturally ordered toward the creation of new life. Therefore it is good for man to use his sexual faculties in a manner consistent with this end (and marriage therefore just is the framework of rights and duties supporting the proper use of this faculty) and bad for him to use it in any way inconsistent with that end.

Thus contraception, sodomy, bestiality, masturbation, etc. etc. etc. are all intrinsic evils. That’s the nutshell version.
 
This is also a good post:

littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2011/11/most-important-question-in-gay-marriage.html

I think legal conclusions should ideally be based on secular grounds. Why does the state care about marriage? It’s because of the children; the state has an obligation to protect them and take care of them if their family is not able. If two people are going to be doing something that can spontaneously bring forth children, it’s in the state’s interest that they stay together in a stable family. That’s why marriage comes with so many benefits.
This does not apply to having children by adoption/surrogacy/etc, since there are other checkpoints in place for that. Hence, the state has no interest in recognizing marriage between two people of the same sex. You could argue that this means the state also shouldn’t recognize a marriage that will be infertile, but that’s not the case. First, few cases of infertility are completely final and sure (basically nothing short of a hysterectomy) and there are also issues with the state having access to people’s medical records. Also, this is something people could just lie about and it would be unproductive to track them down (of course we as Catholics know that there is a lot more fundamental difference between infertile couples and homosexual couples, but this is my attempt at an argument from a purely secular point of view)

I’d be fine with the state setting up another legal framework to make it easier to grant hospital visitation/inheritance/etc rights, but then it should be available to anyone (e.g. siblings)
 
Sorry Michael one more question. Do those who are not Catholic and dont belive gay sex is a mortal sin and thus wont repent still have a chance of going to hell?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top