I think gay marriage should be legal. Is that wrong?

[Demetra2]

yes.

Yes, indeed it is wrong. We need to look no further than the Catholic Church to know that it is wrong and an offense to God. By the way, the OP stated that while premarital sex is wrong, nobody is legally objecting to it. Rather than discuss the legality of these sins, we should be more concerned that premarital sex and gay marriage will wound someone’s soul. These are grave errors and mortal sins which would cause someone to be sent to hell upon their death if they have not sought out the sacrament of reconciliation. Sadly, too many people are ignorant or defiant of this post mortem reality. Hell is real and was shown to the Fatima children and St. Faustina as a warning to all of us.

 

[Rau]

Yes, indeed it is wrong. We need to look no further than the Catholic Church to know that it is wrong and an offense to God. By the way, the OP stated that while premarital sex is wrong, nobody is legally objecting to it. Rather than discuss the legality of these sins, we should be more concerned that premarital sex and gay marriage will wound someone’s soul. These are grave errors and mortal sins which would cause someone to be sent to hell upon their death if they have not sought out the sacrament of reconciliation. Sadly, too many people are ignorant or defiant of this post mortem reality. Hell is real and was shown to the Fatima children and St. Faustina as a warning to all of us.

But, the question was about “legality”. Would you advocate legislating to outlaw sex outside marriage, notwithstanding that not all peoples share our moral compass on this issue?

 

[thewanderer]

But, the question was about “legality”. Would you advocate legislating to outlaw sex outside marriage, notwithstanding that not all peoples share our moral compass on this issue?

This really just is not a good comparison. The issue here is not whether same-sex relationships should be made illegal, but whether the state has a compelling governmental reason to grant them benefits. The comparable question would be whether the state has a compelling reason to grant benefits to heterosexual couples.

 

[mellowcalico]

My now ex-husband is gay. Living with his boyfriend… and who knows, maybe they will get “married.”

I don’t know why my ex wanted to marry me in the first place (he knew at the time he was interested in men. I didn’t of course, or I would have married him). I sometimes suspect it was to “hide” his homosexuality. In his case, he was military and he could have been drummed out if they found out. I have to wonder, if homosexuality was more accepted if he never would have married me and I never would have gone though what I had to go though. Maybe I would be married today to a good, solid, Catholic man and have all the children I dreamed of?

Those thoughts always give me pause on the whole debate of gay marriage–I sometimes wonder if it will cause more good than harm. I certainly saw and personally experienced that harm of having to “hide” homosexuality: 13 years of an unloving marriage and 4 more years of waiting for annulment just to be able to move on. Now I am too old… men my own age don’t want me because they want women to bear children for them. The wasted years, not having the big family I wanted, the rejection now from men my own age because I am “too old” … it all hurts.

So I am torn on the issue. I obey the Church, but I can another side of things too.

 

[Rau]

This really just is not a good comparison. The issue here is not whether same-sex relationships should be made illegal, but whether the state has a compelling governmental reason to grant them benefits. The comparable question would be whether the state has a compelling reason to grant benefits to heterosexual couples.

Perhaps, but I would like to know your thoughts on it anyway.

If a same sex couple intends to live as a couple for life and care for each other, there are some practical legal issues that may arise and for which an accommodation from the Stare may be appropriate.

 

[thewanderer]

Perhaps, but I would like to know your thoughts on it anyway.

If a same sex couple intends to live as a couple for life and care for each other, there are some practical legal issues that may arise and for which an accommodation from the Stare may be appropriate.

I actually agree with that, but I also think it is true of say, a child living with and caring for their sole remaining parent, or two siblings, or even just good platonic friends who never married and decide to live their lives together and help each other out. I think it is wrong to bring the sexual aspect of a relationship into the picture if the governmental reason for giving benefits is a commitment to a shared life together. In other words, I believe the government should provide a contract with benefits for anybody who makes a commitment to share their lives, not only to those who have a romantic relationship and believe that those who argue for marriage to be expanded only to homosexual romantic couples are discriminating against those who commit to sharing their lives together platonically.

I also think the government has a compelling reason to care about relationships that produce offspring, and so think it is reasonable for the government to have a separate contract and benefits program set up for such couples. And yes, I am perfectly fine with the government excluding infertile or postmenopausal heterosexual couples from this.