How did you react when same sex marriage became legal?

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

but that’s your view of nature. it isn’t someone else’s.

Nature is nature…there are no different views. The Earth rotates around the Sun the moon comes out at night. Mankind is designed to procreate. If you have a different concept of nature, please explain it.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

it may not explicitly say that, but it does say that “all men are created equal” and that should be enough.

OK, all men are created equal. All men are created as heterosexuals

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

if nature to them says that it’s ok to marry someone of the same sex, let them i say. government shouldn’t define marriage at all because when it decides marriage is between a man and a woman, it makes gays feel left out. it makes polygamists feel left out. and it’s all despite the fact they view marriage the way they do. can’t they practice it the way they want to without government getting involved?

You are right. Government should have no say about marriage. Because marriage existed long before any government was established. Long before recorded history marriage consisted of one man and one woman. That is marriage.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

if nature to them says that it’s ok to marry someone of the same sex, let them i say.

Hello Sean:

I can tell from your comment that you have a misunderstanding about what the Catholic Church means when it says that homosexual acts are disordered and contrary to nature. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) puts it this way:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

This is a subtle point, but one that is important. The Church does not teach that people with homosexual inclinations are disordered. It teaches that the acts are disordered. The term does not imply psychological or mental disorder, but the fact that the act of homosexual sexual intercourse is not ordered towards the natural end of such relations. In other words, male and female reproductive organs are made (i.e. ordered) for the purpose of procreating. Homosexual sexual acts are contrary to that order, because they are closed to the possibility of creating new life. Hence they are “disordered” or against “nature.” This is not a judgment of the person who struggles with same-sex attraction. It is a comment upon the act itself.

In no way can “nature” say to a person with same sex attraction that it’s okay to “marry” someone of the same gender. Marriage is an institution that was created to bond children to their natural parents because, by its very nature, the “marital act” (the act that is made legitimate in marriage) naturally leads to children. It is natural for man and woman to marry, because their union is fruitful and leads to children. It is not natural for two men or two women to marry because their union, no matter how loving and committed, is not fruitful. By nature, their union is not a marriage.

A person may “feel” that they should have the “right” to “marry” the person they love regardless of their gender. This thinking, however, misunderstands the very nature of marriage. It is based on the incorrect conclusion that “sentiment” controls–i.e. marriage is defined solely by the depth of feeling between the parties. Marriage becomes focused on the “happiness” of the parties when in fact their happiness is not the end of marriage. A stable family is the end of marriage.

It is sentiment that drives the current change in the definition of marriage, and the current change in the law. I would even concede that the change is, for the most part, the result of a feeling of compassion for people who live with same-sex attraction. But in my opinion it is a cruel lie to tell someone that their same sex union is a marriage when, by nature it is not and can never be a marriage, regardless of the real sentiment, and even love, existing between the two same-sex partners (again, notwithstanding homosexual acts, which can never be approved).

We can be a tolerant and fair society that gives rights to these same-sex relationships, and does not unfairly discriminate against persons with same-sex attraction. Indeed, we are called to be fair and loving as Catholics. But this should not mean we stand silent while the organs of our society redefine marriage.

Peace,
Robert

 

[SuperLuigi]

what makes it even more sickening to me is that you believe government should define marriage at all. you think the gay laws will “destroy” the family, yet you believe in excluding others from having the same marital benefits straights have. how fair is that? and don’t tell me you “have to do it”, because no one has to exclude anyone like that. gay marriage has shown not to have a negative effect on the family. in fact, most heterosexual couples aren’t doing good with kids right now. what do you want these kids to do? not have parents at all? it’s time to start giving these kids to LGBT couples.

1. Life isn’t always fair, and anyone who thinks the government can fix that completely is gravely mistaken
2. You should not leave the Catholic Church under any circumstances. :nope: :dts:

 

[SuperLuigi]

OK, all men are created equal. All men are created as heterosexuals

Interesting…:hmm:

 

[Robert_in_SD]

what makes it even more sickening to me is that you believe government should define marriage at all.

Marriage is what it is. Government can attempt to redefine it, but the further the government definition moves away from the truth, the more we will see confusion and chaos.
HDLSeanWiley:

you think the gay laws will “destroy” the family, yet you believe in excluding others from having the same marital benefits straights have. how fair is that?

What benefits are you referring to?
HDLSeanWiley:

gay marriage has shown not to have a negative effect on the family.

By its nature, so-called “gay marriage” separates a child from at least one of his or her natural parents. This is a negative impact, as attested to by adult children of same sex couples who have testified that they were deprived of one parent’s involvement in their upbringing.
HDLSeanWiley:

In fact, most heterosexual couples aren’t doing good with kids right now. what do you want these kids to do? not have parents at all? it’s time to start giving these kids to LGBT couples.

What kids are you referring to? I would say that all things being equal, the best place for a child to grow up is in a single home with both natural parents, a mom and a dad. A same-sex couple by definition cannot provide this. If a child cannot be raised by her natural parents in a single home, alternatives can be considered. But a less desirable home life does not justify so-called “gay marriage”

Peace,
Robert

 

[QuestLove]

Maybe I am in the minority here. But in terms of being a threat to traditional marriage, DIVORCE seems to be a way bigger issue than SSM.
One post mentioned that SSM marriage leaves children without one parent, but at least among the single-parent families I am exposed to, gay marriage had very little to do with the break-up of the family.
Now I understand the church’s stance on SSM and many here agree I am sure, but I have argued that many churches disproportionately target SSM rather than divorce, which seems to be endemic in the Church today. Can we really say to others “We have the answer?” when our families are splitting up at the same rate that secular ones are?

Again I am not saying the church should accept or even remain silent on SSM…All I am saying is, putting it into context, Which is a bigger threat to traditional marriage?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Maybe I am in the minority here. But in terms of being a threat to traditional marriage, DIVORCE seems to be a way bigger issue than SSM.
One post mentioned that SSM marriage leaves children without one parent, but at least among the single-parent families I am exposed to, gay marriage had very little to do with the break-up of the family.
Now I understand the church’s stance on SSM and many here agree I am sure, but I have argued that many churches disproportionately target SSM rather than divorce, which seems to be endemic in the Church today. Can we really say to others “We have the answer?” when our families are splitting up at the same rate that secular ones are?

Again I am not saying the church should accept or even remain silent on SSM…All I am saying is, putting it into context, Which is a bigger threat to traditional marriage?

I think we should leave divorce out of this equation…until we get some statistics about the divorce rates among same sex marriages.

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

Hello Sean:

I can tell from your comment that you have a misunderstanding about what the Catholic Church means when it says that homosexual acts are disordered and contrary to nature. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) puts it this way:

This is a subtle point, but one that is important. The Church does not teach that people with homosexual inclinations are disordered. It teaches that the acts are disordered. The term does not imply psychological or mental disorder, but the fact that the act of homosexual sexual intercourse is not ordered towards the natural end of such relations. In other words, male and female reproductive organs are made (i.e. ordered) for the purpose of procreating. Homosexual sexual acts are contrary to that order, because they are closed to the possibility of creating new life. Hence they are “disordered” or against “nature.” This is not a judgment of the person who struggles with same-sex attraction. It is a comment upon the act itself.

In no way can “nature” say to a person with same sex attraction that it’s okay to “marry” someone of the same gender. Marriage is an institution that was created to bond children to their natural parents because, by its very nature, the “marital act” (the act that is made legitimate in marriage) naturally leads to children. It is natural for man and woman to marry, because their union is fruitful and leads to children. It is not natural for two men or two women to marry because their union, no matter how loving and committed, is not fruitful. By nature, their union is not a marriage.

A person may “feel” that they should have the “right” to “marry” the person they love regardless of their gender. This thinking, however, misunderstands the very nature of marriage. It is based on the incorrect conclusion that “sentiment” controls–i.e. marriage is defined solely by the depth of feeling between the parties. Marriage becomes focused on the “happiness” of the parties when in fact their happiness is not the end of marriage. A stable family is the end of marriage.

It is sentiment that drives the current change in the definition of marriage, and the current change in the law. I would even concede that the change is, for the most part, the result of a feeling of compassion for people who live with same-sex attraction. But in my opinion it is a cruel lie to tell someone that their same sex union is a marriage when, by nature it is not and can never be a marriage, regardless of the real sentiment, and even love, existing between the two same-sex partners (again, notwithstanding homosexual acts, which can never be approved).

We can be a tolerant and fair society that gives rights to these same-sex relationships, and does not unfairly discriminate against persons with same-sex attraction. Indeed, we are called to be fair and loving as Catholics. But this should not mean we stand silent while the organs of our society redefine marriage.

Peace,
Robert

And how exactly has the Catholic Church demonstrated or put into action this fair and loving attitude toward gay people? The Church supported state constitutional amendments that outlawed not only marriage but any form of civil union or domestic partnership that would grant the rights you’re talking about. That seems to be all that this fair and loving attitude is…just talk.

 

[Bradski]

I think we should leave divorce out of this equation…

It would certainly be convenient for you. Less than a fifth of Catholics think that divorce is wrong. That’s a lot of Catholics who don’t have a problem with it. pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/03/vatican-synod-on-family-highlights-discord-between-church-teachings-and-u-s-catholics-views-2/

The numbers of Catholics involved in divorce run to the many millions. catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholics-continue-to-have-lowest-divorce-rates-report-finds/

Maybe you should spend some time and effort where it may do the most good. That would be in-house, amongst other Catholics.

 

[Good_Fella]

This is how I reacted:

PAX :heaven:

 

[BobCatholic]

As Same Sex Marriage (SSM) kept moving forward, I knew this was the end of the first amendment. This will be used to shut down freedom of speech and religion and opinion.

And it has. People bullied to submission, if you don’t accept SSM you’re evil.
People punished and losing everything because they dare to have a differing belief.
People forced to resign jobs because they don’t support SSM.

We are heading toward a society where “Shut up! Don’t think!” will be the rule, and the marketplace of ideas will be dead.

 

[eamonnroma]

Homosexuals are part of God’s creation, and therefore homosexuals are created by God.

God loves his creation, so therefore God loves homosexuals.

Does everybody agree with this?

 

[Good_Fella]

Homosexuals are part of God’s creation, and therefore homosexuals are created by God.

God loves his creation, so therefore God loves homosexuals.

Does everybody agree with this?

Certainly. But same sex marriage wasn’t what God had intended when He created the world.

PAX:heaven:

 

[Corki]

Homosexuals are part of God’s creation, and therefore homosexuals are created by God.

God loves his creation, so therefore God loves homosexuals.

Does everybody agree with this?

Only partially correct. God’s creation of man did not include homosexuality or any other disordered condition. Those conditions entered the world through sin. God does not love persons with homosexuality because he created them that way. He loves them, and all of us, in spite of our fallen nature.

But yes, God loves all of His creations and he most certainly loves those who endure homosexuality. But he does not love or condone their sinful actions.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Only partially correct. God’s creation of man did not include homosexuality or any other disordered condition. Those conditions entered the world through sin. God does not love persons with homosexuality because he created them that way. He loves them, and all of us, in spite of our fallen nature.

But yes, God loves all of His creations and he most certainly loves those who endure homosexuality. But he does not love or condone their sinful actions.

Beautifully said.This is it!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltan Cobalt View Post
OK, all men are created equal. All men are created as heterosexuals

It is an interesting concept, when you think about it.

Homosexuals are, in fact, actually heterosexuals who are attracted to the same sex.

 

[Jeanne_S]

It is an interesting concept, when you think about it.

Homosexuals are, in fact, actually heterosexuals who are attracted to the same sex.

Not true.Heterosexual means attracted to the opposite sex.

 

[kozlosap]

Depending on different models, LGBTQ people make up about 2% to 4% of the population. For the last quarter of a century the divorce rate is over 50%. Those numbers alone make it blatantly clear that divorce affects our world far more than gay marriage issues.