A
Adamski
Guest
It always seems that abortion and same sex marriage people walk hand and hand my only thought is they must want sex with out the responsibility of it. Any thoughts
- Status
A
Aussie_Pilgrim
Guest
I think it’s more that people who are irreligious have just chosen those issues as the focus of their attack on Christianity. Those people are not necessarily vehemently pro-gay or pro-abortion just anti-Christian.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Until I became Catholic, I was extremely pro-life and extremely pro-SS’M.’ Stereotyping usually doesn’t turn out so well. The difference is that it is a lot easier to play to someone’s natural concern for human life (abortion) than it is to discuss an issue that really has no secular basis or defense behind it (banning SS’M’).
G
GEddie
Guest
I think it’s more that once procreation and “sex” have been separated, there is no need, beyond social convention, to limit societal sanction of relationships to those that by nature would lead to procreation. The meaning of marriage once swept aside, it can be “redefined” as those in command see fit.
ICXC NIKA
S
stephe1987
Guest
It’s about sex without responsibility, and a lack of chastity. They do not believe in self-mastery. We need to pray for the conversion of their souls.
S
simpleas
Guest
I can not believe how ignornant catholic people can be towards people who do not share their every thought.
I
ianjmatt
Guest
Here in the UK many people on the political right would be pro-life but support SSM. They would see abortion as an issue of protecting the innocent but SSM as a libertarian issue. I have many friends who would think this way.
B
Blessed_is_He
Guest
I am for gay marriage and pro life. I also have a baby. There are more out there. Please do not stereotype.
M
markomalley
Guest
I’ve seen people who are pro-SSM and are anti-abortion*.
Note the asterisk next to “anti-abortion”:
*with allowing exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother.
It is exceedingly rare that I see somebody who is pro-SSM and pro-life (with no asterisk).
But I, too, wouldn’t generalize.
Note the asterisk next to “anti-abortion”:
*with allowing exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother.
It is exceedingly rare that I see somebody who is pro-SSM and pro-life (with no asterisk).
But I, too, wouldn’t generalize.
R
Rau
Guest
I **almost **agree with your remark about the lack of a **secular **argument against same sex marriage.
First - SS’M’ is not so much banned as the law holds the participants need to meet eligibility criteria (though I admit this interpretation may not apply in every jurisdiction). The eligibility criteria is that the participants be of an appropriate age, unmarried, sufficiently unrelated and 2 in number, viz: 1 x Man + 1 x Woman.
Second - I would not stand in the way of the State defining an institution / legal framework that met the reasonable needs of a same-sex couple and delivered benefits in proportion to those needs and to the value the State reaps from the relationship. However, the institution cannot be called Marriage, because that word defines the unique institution we already have.
R
Rau
Guest
Has a particular post(s) in this thread led you to express that view? Could you elaborate and perhaps point out the ignorance at issue?
S
SMGS127
Guest
I don’t disagree on either paragraph. But I don’t disagree because God has clearly explained through revelation that SS relationships are contrary to natural law. For someone who believed in God but who was determined to have their life not governed by Him as long as they were a good person (me before I became Catholic), there’s no secular defense. And I wouldn’t have listened to a religious defense at the time either. There are secular defenses against all sorts of arrangements (incest leads to serious hereditary diseases from inbreeding, polygamy typically results in power tiers and abuse, etc.), but there isn’t really one for SS relationships. Once you accept natural law, it’s easy to say “well yes, it violates natural law” and to understand why it’s sinful and to agree with what the Church teaches. But it is very, very hard for a secular person to understand that, because they don’t accept natural law as their grounding place, or they consider something else (e.g. their personal conscience) to define natural law.
As for abortion, one only needs to show the pictures of murdered little ones for someone to know it’s wrong, even without the Church needing to say so
.
L
Lokadottir
Guest
… that argument can be made about abortion but not about homosexuality.
S
Sarabande
Guest
Yes, that is true, but as you have said, there are people out there who are pro-SSM and pro-life (without the asterisk), thus it would be wrong to generalize. It may also be that we think it is rare because the media is not doing anything to bring them out to the spotlight. It’s the same thing as pro-life feminists. They are out there and even have several groups yet you very rarely see them in the news even though they are at the anti-abortion rallies. Much of the mainstream media chooses to not show them.
Here are some pics of secular prolifers at the rally back in January and it also shows pics of an actual pro-life gay and lesbian alliance. The news admits that it was small, but very vocal “sub-group”.
buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/13-young-secular-people-who-also-believe-abortion-is-wrong
J
JimG
Guest
It doesn’t seem to me that we even need divine revelation to know that same sex marriage is against natural law. Actually, most societies prior to ours realized that fact quite well, not because God revealed it to them, but by merely observing the design of the human body.
Some things are obvious. Male and female are sexually complementary. Sex often results in babies. Babies have mothers and fathers. They are dependent on mothers and fathers for a long period of time. It’s beneficial to society when mom and dad are married and together raise families, providing the state with a new generation of citizens and taxpayers.
Everybody knows that same sex couples are incapable of marital sex. They are incapable of generating children and of family formation. They are incapable of specifically conjugal relations.
Families undergird the state. This has been true for millenia. I’ve never particularly thought of traditional marriage as something mandated by religion. It is something mandated by human anatomy and biology.
Many societies tolerated homosexual relationships; they never treated them as marriage because they were entirely different from marriage (and still are), and are of no benefit to the state.
What, after all, are men and women for? Most societies seem to have had a basic understanding of that, that we have lost.
And it does seem that once the understanding of the purpose of marriage has been lost, so has the understanding of the value of family, and the value of children. Thus the liberty to kill one’s children follows on the liberty to treat sex as a plaything.
Some things are obvious. Male and female are sexually complementary. Sex often results in babies. Babies have mothers and fathers. They are dependent on mothers and fathers for a long period of time. It’s beneficial to society when mom and dad are married and together raise families, providing the state with a new generation of citizens and taxpayers.
Everybody knows that same sex couples are incapable of marital sex. They are incapable of generating children and of family formation. They are incapable of specifically conjugal relations.
Families undergird the state. This has been true for millenia. I’ve never particularly thought of traditional marriage as something mandated by religion. It is something mandated by human anatomy and biology.
Many societies tolerated homosexual relationships; they never treated them as marriage because they were entirely different from marriage (and still are), and are of no benefit to the state.
What, after all, are men and women for? Most societies seem to have had a basic understanding of that, that we have lost.
And it does seem that once the understanding of the purpose of marriage has been lost, so has the understanding of the value of family, and the value of children. Thus the liberty to kill one’s children follows on the liberty to treat sex as a plaything.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
The pill and the so-called “free love” revolution of the 1960’s deceived many into believing that sex could be separated from any expectation of pregnancy and that marriage didn’t have to have anything to do with children and family. And that led to many women becoming convinced that marriage itself wasn’t important. The result was the disintegration of the family - adultery, abortion, divorce, and the numbers of children born out of wedlock skyrocketing. Now they want to redefine marriage to something that is the complete opposite of the original meaning. Like someone who has abused their vehicle for years and doesn’t care if it gets another scratch, mainstream society lost all respect for the institution of marriage and family. I think they stopped caring about the long-term consequences this attack on marriage will have on children because they have become desensitized to the fact that children are getting killed in the womb.
S
SMGS127
Guest
I also feel like I should leave this here, as it is very relevant. Obviously NOT a site faithful to Catholic doctrine, as they are pro-SS’M.’
plagal.org/
plagal.org/
C
CesarAugustus
Guest
Please read what is said in the posts after you regarding Divine Law and Natural law.
A Catholic shouldn’t support these “marriages”.
God Bless you!
K
Kevin_B
Guest
I am very pro-life and very pro-SSM. Killing a baby is not related with letting two people who love each other get married. At all. I do not believe homosexuality violates natural law. At all.
R
Rau
Guest
Do you wish to expand on your thoughts?
What is Marriage?
What is Natural Law about, and what does violate it?
- Status