I'm a gay guy. Should I marry a woman?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Andy_82 said:
that sin is contextual per the time in which it occurs.
Click to expand...
Sin is the misuse of the intellect and the will. Thus it is always wrong to murder, it is always wrong to steal, it is always wrong to misuse the gift of sexuality which is linked to the very creation of a new human being with an eternal soul. Jesus said that from the beginning God created male and female to become one, thus He condemns divorce. The idea of taking man’s sexual organs and seed and do with them as you can imagine, was, is, and always will be abominable in the eyes of God, according to Jesus and His Church…
 
Yes, for impractical reasons. Revenge, dominance, slavery and often times ritual. If love was an aspect it wasn’t really written about as there wasn’t a wrong to report. Writing was expensive at the time and we do know from the Greeks that male love was indeed a thing. They just didn’t write much about it and never in a way the Hebrews reference it in the bible as there was probably no need to warn against it.
 
The reason why he says this is that marriage at the time pertained only arrangement for the purposes of continuing the Hebrew bloodline, inheritance and the caring of women and children of a marriage. It hadn’t anything to do with love as we consider marriage to be an institution today. The broader passage there, not just the end of Matthew 19:4 you suggest, is that god created man and woman (people) to care for one another in whatever contract they had. This meant marriage, family and neighbor. Not just husband and wife and he was using that device to describe what divorce meant then: it meant abandonment of your fellow man that you formed a covenant with as a marriage and you were, therefore, going against God. It never speaks of homosexuality in the way you apply it.
 
It seems ironic that Catholics who preach that SSA people should be chaste just like everyone else, would not support this situation.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

For many in the Church, it is mandated to gay Christians that they are to remain celibate. They can’t marry (a member of the same sex). They can’t enter the priesthood. They can’t even attempt heterosexual marriage. Talk about vocation!
 
Of course, I agree they can’t marry someone of the same sex. Of the second two options, they are both ok in theory. I actually thing the middle one is more problematic than marriage, but that is assuming with the qualifications of the marriage which you specify.
 
@Andy_82

I agree with much of what you say, insofar as the biblical texts as they are do not really address what we are talking about today. Committed homosexual relationships (“marriage”) — and homosexuality as an orientation — were simply not known at the time of Paul, for example.

However, as interesting as your commentary is, we still have to deal with the fact that the Catholic Church has a certain consistent doctrine on marriage and sexual ethic. We don’t just look at the Bible, we look to the Church as a living teaching voice.

I have a question for you, as a Catholic:

How do you understand the infallibility of the Church? Do you think the Church is simply wrong when it says that homosexual acts are, in themselves, wrong — regardless of circumstance? Do you expect this to be something that can evolve, something that the Church is simply mistaken on currently?
 
Last edited:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that a man with SSA could be a accepted to seminary to become a priest as long as he has not acted on it in the last 5 years.
 
Not at all I feel as though the church is right, in an ancient perspective, on the old definition of gay acts. That they within the context of abuse or idolatry are wrong. It’s more that it hasn’t adopted a new tack on our new tack on the matter. That is to say it’s a means of expanding the family in a way that the bible doesn’t really address beyond the matter of gay sex acts as abuse. The church isn’t wrong in its ruling in that regard. It’s just that it needs to adopt another set of rules pertaining to this particular kind of being gay that we just really haven’t ever dealt with before.
 
I believe that depends upon which order you enter into. Though, we’re then talking about so much literature to cover that it becomes difficult to fathom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top