How Do Those Who Call Themselves Catholic Support Gay Marriage?

[kanrok]

The purpose of the question was to see if there was a reasonable answer.

But what I’ve found in this thread is no different than what my personal experiences are in asking Catholics I know how they cam to support gay marriage.

You can string together as many sentences as you choose to explain your position, but what it boils down to at the end of the day is that for a Catholic to support gay marriage he or she must necessarily determine that sodomy is not a sin.

As Nacho mentioned above, once we do that, there is a whole host of other behaviors we must then consider not to be sinful. In your list for instance: masturbation, pre-marital sex, contraceptive sex, virtually any sex outside a sacramental marriage that is not intended for procreative purposes is now okay!

Why not just say that the whole of the Catholic Church’s teaching on sex is just wrong?

The question is only directed towards gay marriage because that is the issue of the day.

 

[DexUK]

This is an astonishing spin on what the Church teaches, what the Scriptures reveal and what Holy Tradition holds as truth. It also opens wide the door for additional immoralities to be justified by using the same philosophical approach.

You are correct on one thing. There cannot be any argument. The Church teaches it is wrong and has placed this in its Catechism. That ends the argument for a Catholic.

Well, by your definition, I’m clearly not a Catholic then. Good job I don’t have to listen to you!

 

[DexUK]

…at the end of the day is that for a Catholic to support gay marriage he or she must necessarily determine that sodomy is not a sin.

Not necessarily.

Plenty of gay people do not indulge in sodomy.

Lesbians, in particular, would find it rather difficult!

 

[kanrok]

Not necessarily.

Plenty of gay people do not indulge in sodomy.

Lesbians, in particular, would find it rather difficult!

You might want to look up the definition of sodomy.

 

[kanrok]

Well, by your definition, I’m clearly not a Catholic then. Good job I don’t have to listen to you!

Your conclusion is inconsistent with Catholic doctrine.

Which is different than saying “[you] are not clearly Catholic.”

Miracles happen.

You might repent someday.

We’ll be praying for your eternal soul.

 

[Origen52]

That’s what I was asking you.

Please read my signature line.

I never asked that they should.

Which was based on…religious moral values. Judeo/Christian moral values to be specific.

Not really, but I am curious why you think I must.

That is, I believe, the purpose of this thread.

I expect very little from politicians, especially in the way of morality. You may not want to keep referencing the Constitution in relation to marriage. Marriage isn’t a constitutional right. Many claim it is, a common misconception, but it isn’t.

That would be nice. Unfortunately, that isn’t happening in many areas, including this one.

So nacho, let’s cut to the chase, what are you saying? What is your message to the masses of heathens? I’m tired of your dance steps. Give us your final vision of what you expect the politicians to do? Name those who will be damned. Call out the Christians who will burn in hell because they do not follow your vision of the way. And then let’s be done with it.

 

[Lochias]

Well, by your definition, I’m clearly not a Catholic then. Good job I don’t have to listen to you!

Can you imagine Jesus hanging there on the cross, dripping with blood, wracked with pain, and looking at you with all the love in the world and beyond…only to have you say “I do not trust you. I do not trust the Church that you instituted, and I do not trust your promises that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against this Church. I do not trust Scripture in this regard, and I am right in what I think, not your Church. I defy the institution that you made for us in this regard, and I will propagate the false understanding that homosexual unions are not sinful. But hey, I love you.”

Because that’s exactly what you’re doing. Jesus died for you, and it was apparently for naught, if this is the path that you choose.

 

[estesbob]

I’m going to come out of the closet here.

I am a Catholic who has absolutely no problem with the concept of ‘Gay Marriage’.

I’ll tell you what I do have trouble with though… That’s the ridiculously misunderstood concept of the Biblical ‘proscription’ of homosexuality.

Wherever homosexual activity is actually directly mentioned (rather than indirectly, as with Leviticus) it is related as a change of behaviour and in respect of wilful rebellion against that which is authentic to the person concerned.

St Paul condemns those who act contrary to their nature. Since one’s nature is God-given, to act contrary to it for any reason, including ‘fashionable behaviour’ such as might have been prevalent in some of the societies that St Paul evangelised, is to reject a gift from God. Rejecting anything from God (knowingly) is sinful.

Men created the laws that discriminated against homosexuals. Men who couldn’t see beyond their own experience of life and couldn’t accept anyone else’s instincts as being authentic if different from their own. It is pure arrogance to decide what love is good and what love is bad. ALL love is good. Love IS good. Love comes from God and God is incapable of giving us anything bad.

We all need to catch up with what God has taught us and do away with the crushing injustices that we heap upon our brothers and sisters who may not share the same desires we do, but have no other desires than those that they have been given.

To crush a person’s love for another has got to be one of the biggest sins imaginable.

I had hemmed and hawed about this for a long time, but in my heart of hearts I’ve known what is right. There cannot be any argument. For this reason, I have to approve of gay marriage. My faith in God forces me to do so.

Since we are not a Sola Scriptura Church the only conclusion one can reach from your post is that you believe Church has been wrong about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior for the last 2,000 plus years.?That our Church is guilty of “pure arrogance” and it took our “enlightened” generation to figure this out? Should we also doubt their teachings on the Resurrection and the divinity of Christ or do we only doubt them when their teachings conflict with our political views and/or the mores of the current culture?

 

[estesbob]

You might want to look up the definition of sodomy.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[DexUK]

Can you imagine Jesus hanging there on the cross, dripping with blood, wracked with pain, and looking at you with all the love in the world and beyond…only to have you say “I do not trust you. I do not trust the Church that you instituted, and I do not trust your promises that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against this Church. I do not trust Scripture in this regard, and I am right in what I think, not your Church. I defy the institution that you made for us in this regard, and I will propagate the false understanding that homosexual unions are not sinful. But hey, I love you.”

Because that’s exactly what you’re doing. Jesus died for you, and it was apparently for naught, if this is the path that you choose.

Nonsense.

Christ didn’t mention homosexuals at all. He only talked about Love. Love for God and love for one another. An unconditional love. It’s men that put conditions on it.

 

[Lochias]

Nonsense.

Christ didn’t mention homosexuals at all. He only talked about Love. Love for God and love for one another. An unconditional love. It’s men that put conditions on it.

Christ didn’t talk about the Trinity either, but we believe that. Unconditional love does not extend to condoning the sins of others. Everyone then knew, too, that homosexuality was a sin.

Your excuses are old and tired, and have been discounted numerous times.

Christ died so that you and all others may live, free of sin and free to actually love others, not pretend that the things that are harming themselves and others are a-okay.

Further, he did talk about the Church, and the authority he gave it. You’re dismissing Christ, flat-out.

 

[DexUK]

You might want to look up the definition of sodomy.

Well, if we’re being strict about it, a Sodomite was a person who lived in a town where some of its male inhabitants wanted to force themselves on unwilling male victims.

So technically, a sodomite is a male rapist.

But most people define sodomy as anal sex involving at least one man. I know it and you know it. And two women, by the very nature of their anatomy, simply don’t have that capability.

But far be it from me to educate people in the correct use of language and understanding of basic anatomy!

 

[DexUK]

Christ didn’t talk about the Trinity either, but we believe that. Unconditional love does not extend to condoning the sins of others. Everyone then knew, too, that homosexuality was a sin.

Your excuses are old and tired, and have been discounted numerous times.

Christ died so that you and all others may live, free of sin and free to actually love others, not pretend that the things that are harming themselves and others are a-okay.

Further, he did talk about the Church, and the authority he gave it. You’re dismissing Christ, flat-out.

I’m sorry - where exactly is the ‘harm’ that two persons of the same gender cause to others?

Are you incapable of conducting your own romantic life if someone else conducts theirs in a fashion not to your tastes?

Your argument is the one that is old and tired and very easily discounted.

 

[Lochias]

Well, if we’re being strict about it, a Sodomite was a person who lived in a town where some of its male inhabitants wanted to force themselves on unwilling male victims.

So technically, a sodomite is a male rapist.

But most people define sodomy as anal sex involving at least one man. I know it and you know it. And two women, by the very nature of their anatomy, simply don’t have that capability.

But far be it from me to educate people in the correct use of language and understanding of basic anatomy!

definitions.uslegal.com/s/sodomy/

 

[Lochias]

I’m sorry - where exactly is the ‘harm’ that two persons of the same gender cause to others?

Breakdown of the traditional family unit that raises children with a mother and father (which two men or two women can never be an adequate substitute for), encouragement of free sexual practice that leads to increased outbreak of disease, unwanted pregnancies and a throw-away mentality about relationships in general, and the trampling of religious freedom, just to name a few.

Are you incapable of conducting your own romantic life if someone else conducts theirs in a fashion not to your tastes?

Did I say anything about my own romantic life? Nope. Don’t play games with me.

Your argument is the one that is old and tired and very easily discounted.

No, it’s simply one that’s ignored, to the detriment of society in general.

 

[estesbob]

I’m sorry - where exactly is the ‘harm’ that two persons of the same gender cause to others?

Are you incapable of conducting your own romantic life if someone else conducts theirs in a fashion not to your tastes?

Your argument is the one that is old and tired and very easily discounted.

So 2,000 years of teachings of the Church are “old and tired”. What makes our generation so much smarter than all who went before us?

 

[Lochias]

Worth a read:

ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-you-a-hater-or-a-bigot-or-are-you-just-intolerant/

 

[DexUK]

Since we are not a Sola Scriptura Church the only conclusion one can reach from your post is that you believe Church has been wrong about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior for the last 2,000 plus years.?That our Church is guilty of “pure arrogance” and it took our “enlightened” generation to figure this out? Should we also doubt their teachings on the Resurrection and the divinity of Christ or do we only doubt them when their teachings conflict with our political views and/or the mores of the current culture?

My conclusion is that what has been wrong has been the conclusions drawn by people about situations proscribed in the Bible.

It’s not the Church that is arrogant. The Church itself isn’t subject to arrogance. But the people within it are - and there hasn’t been a single sinless one of them. Ever. From Saint Peter, with his thrice fold denial and his foolish tempestuousness onwards, every single person that has ever walked this earth has relied on human ability to draw conclusions. And for a long time people have abrogated their own responsibility to question conclusions that have been handed down, instead trusting that people before them had done all the work necessary and they only needed to believe what they were told without questioning.

Well, thankfully, we are no longer required to believe blindly. Since we were allowed to read the Bible for ourselves, we have all been allowed to be ‘doubting Thomases’ and see the evidence for ourselves.

The evidence is there: St Paul - in the Greek and in the translations - speaks of the sin of heterosexual men giving themselves over to homosexual activity and wilfully rejecting that which was natural for them.

No honest person can therefore escape the corollary that it would be equally sinful for a homosexual person to give themselves over to a heterosexual lifestyle by wilfully rejecting that which was natural to her or him.

We are what we are by the Grace of God from the moment of our conception. It is not for us to question our natural being.

Yes, the Church may well never allow homosexual unions to be sacramentalised - and that isn’t a problem if the sacrament is related to unions that are open to the creation of life because that new life is, itself, sacrosanct and a gift from God and deserves to be held within a sacramental status. But that doesn’t mean that men and women who find themselves to be homosexual should live lives of despairing loneliness without the companionship and mutual support of one another that married couples enjoy. That would be cruel and unusual and to deny people that love, that joy, that safety, that mutual support, spiritual complementarity and connection is and can only ever be sinful if you really and truly believe that Christ Himself commands us to love one another.

It cannot possibly be and is not loving to deny someone else the chance to love the person whom they are naturally created to love.

And if that means I’m not a Catholic, then so be it. If the Pope (who, thankfully, seems to be much more enlightened on these matters than many of his flock) wants my membership card back, then I’ll gladly give it up. But nobody well ever persuade me that forcing someone into a life without love is a good idea.

 

[DexUK]

Breakdown of the traditional family unit that raises children with a mother and father… , encouragement of free sexual practice that leads to … unwanted pregnancies and a throw-away mentality about relationships in general…

Gay marriage causes unwanted pregnancies?!

Good grief, I’ve got some work to do on educating people about basic human reproduction!

Gay marriage causes a throw-away mentality about relationships?

Considering that gay people haven’t hitherto had the opportunity to get married and now, in some places, they do, the idea that giving people the chance to commit themselves to another person is somehow encouraging people NOT to commit is ludicrous!

 

[DexUK]

So 2,000 years of teachings of the Church are “old and tired”. What makes our generation so much smarter than all who went before us?

You didn’t answer my question.