Is calling gay marriage unnatural a good argument?

[Mark86]

It is wrong to segment them out of the main group. This is fine if we are discussing the phenomena as a study. It would be no more permissible to say “Robbers need to know …permits them to be human”. We don’t use the phraseology because we have confession for him in the back of our mind.

What I meant is affections that are as necessary as breathing, for “man can not live without love.” A robber can live without robbing. A gay person can not live without “love.” They get the message that they are not worthy of love on any human level, “because they are gay.” But who is going to dare tell them the truth that they are actually MADE for love?

The fact is, gays get the message over and over again how “God hates them” and how “gays go to hell.” All over the world they are subject to shunning practices, tortures, life imprisonment, and death sentences (even just for being suspected of being gay). The cultural ideology that God is “against them” and against their attractions, against their lifestyles and against those who offer them any kind of support, is a reality they have to deal with just trying to live their daily life. They get all that 24/7.

What so many don’t get is the truth of the gospel, that God does love them, that there is hope for them, that when human rights atrocities are committed against them, they are indeed atrocities against their dignity as creatures made in God’s image. What they’re not getting told is that God is commanding them, just like everyone, to LOVE one another… not to “withhold” their love, not to “repress” their God-given ability to love, not to live in hatred and fear of it… but to express it in Godly ways.

The absolute most common thing I hear is… “Why can’t I love this person?”

How would Jesus of Nazareth answer a gay person that question… “Why does God **not **want me to love this person that I love?”

If all the laity is doing when that question is asked is saying “Because God says so!” …We’re missing an opportunity. Because then they’re going to say “well then how can God be a God of love if he doesn’t want me to love this person? God must not be a loving God…” …

What they need to be taught is God is not just permitting them to love that person, but commanding them to love that person… truly love that person. Expressing a chaste love for that person, yes… what the Church calls “disinterested friendship” …

Instead of saying “gays can’t have friends,” … the Church teaches that it is actually via those chaste, disinterested friendships (along with prayer and the sacraments), that people with same-sex attraction “can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” (CCC 2359).

That’s not my teaching… that’s what the Church says.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

These “protections” might be entirely reasonable things. Granting them to a married couple makes sense. But making the sexual relationship of marriage the only threshold to access them may be questionable. .

Agreed, why does the state make such protections so difficult to access that such couples only have the vehicle of ”marriage” available to them.

The sexual rights and care of children rights such a vehicle traditionally provided is not really what is primarily sought in the examples provided below it seems.

It is disappointing Civil Unions, as a distinct vehicle from traditional marriage, has not been pursued by caring Christian countries instead to provide these separate legal protections.

 

[djames99]

It is precisely why we cannot live without love that we choose to trust God’s precepts in times when we feel unloved. Many confuse romantic love with communal fraternal love.

*The fact is, gays get the message over and over again how “God hates them” and how “gays go to hell.” All over the world they are subject to shunning practices, tortures, life imprisonment, and death sentences (even just for being suspected of being gay). The cultural ideology that God is “against them” and against their attractions, against their lifestyles and against those who offer them any kind of support, is a reality they have to deal with just trying to live their daily life. They get all that 24/7. *

Those of the world have made it their own, and the Faith of others is their enemy. This is why we seek advice from Authoritative sources as scripture advises. It is not only in the HS issue that we find this attack on people who are seeking truth. The world’s dogma is the rule of “Morality by Consensus”. The secularist asks, "Well, 400 million are doing it, and all the "christian?“protestant churches say it’s OK, surely, it must be OK”. The devil demands more converts of his followers, so these who are falsely convinced go on to pollute the minds of unfortunates that seek help.

The CC also says that we should remain in friendship with God. Once God tells us what really irks Him, we should be seeking to restore that love to a satisfactory degree through confession and absolution. We should stay clear of occasions and feelings that would have us go the wrong way. The acceptance, or doing nothing when we can effect change, is an insincere and implied desire for the main object. After a court tells us to keep away from bars, it is insincere if we take the route past the bar door when other routes are available.

The Church considers it an infatuation. The infatuation is based on passion, an enthusiasm seeking an outlet for expression. Whatever it is, it is an occasion, albeit subtle and innocent as it seems. It’s danger lies in that it has the potential to change someone. It should not be nurtured, and nurturing is allowing it to reside. A firm immediate rejection and appeal to the Holy Family gets rid of this, and becomes more effective the more times this is done.

 

[Mark86]

The Church considers it an infatuation. The infatuation is based on passion, an enthusiasm seeking an outlet for expression. Whatever it is, it is an occasion, albeit subtle and innocent as it seems. It’s danger lies in that it has the potential to change someone. It should not be nurtured, and nurturing is allowing it to reside. A firm immediate rejection and appeal to the Holy Family gets rid of this, and becomes more effective the more times this is done.

Rejecting and getting rid of old patterns of behavior is not the end of the Christian life. It is the first step on it. Do you know how many times I’ve “rejected” and “gotten rid of” infatuations and attractions and desires, and “pushed down” and “bottled up” and “cut off” …etc. When my right hand offends me, I cut it off… yes, but then it grows back worse than before. I cut it off again, and it grows back even more worse than it was before I started trying to cut it off…

It’s not enough to simply reject and cut off and dismiss and turn away and close our eyes, cover our ears, shut our mouths, and hide our heads in the SAND and wait to die…

SSA Catholics need things to live for (not just something to “live against”), to share their talents and gifts for love with (not just “turn away from”).

So many “straight Catholics” seem to forget this. I don’t know how many more times I can try to make this point. I feel like I’m emptying myself out trying to labor this point home.

If straight people need that sense of communal, fraternal love to give themselves over to, why shouldn’t the same be true for those suffering with SSA?

I know a lot of people with SSA who have incredible things to offer, incredible God-given talents and devotion for others… they are more faithful friends than any “straight” person I’ve ever known. They’ve helped me when no one else would. They have just such a profound and pure joy about everything in life, and a deep abiding self-giving love for others. They love performance and singing. They love cooking and they’re always sharing their recipes with me… “oh you gotta try this one!” … They have a quiet spirit and a repose and a joy about life I just don’t see in people who are endlessly harping about “fire and brimstone!” with “righteous anger!” They love life and love this beautiful world. They will actually make me feel the love that God has for me… not just tell me “God loves you” as some intellectual exercise.

They don’t go around angry thumping Bibles and harassing random people with “You’re going to burn in the lake of fire!” like many Christians do.

There’s a lot we can learn from celibate SSA people, if only we would include them more in the life of the Church.

 

[Mark86]

And if me saying all this only makes someone think “oh typical gay agenda propaganda…” then I don’t know what to say anymore. Some people are just convinced that anything that affirms the God-given dignity of souls who happen to suffer with SSA is “propaganda for the gay agenda” … and there’s just no way to communicate anymore. People are talking a different language. One side can’t mention same-sex attraction without automatically thinking of “sin” and “the devil”!!!.. the other side sees them as human beings made in God’s own image, suffering under the cross like everyone else… and what can be said to bridge such a gap?

Hopefully people’s hearts will be more compassionate in time.

 

[Rau]

Agreed, why does the state make such protections so difficult to access that such couples only have the vehicle of ”marriage” available to them.

A better question might be why does the State presume that elements of the legal framework associated with marriage might not be valuable in an altogether different (non-romantic) context? [Or at least a context where romantic involvement is not automatically assumed. Note that Civil Unions generally exclude close relatives eg. siblings, aunts/uncles, cousins…thus explicitly carrying a romantic implication.]

The sexual rights and care of children rights such a vehicle traditionally provided is not really what is primarily sought in the examples provided below it seems.

[What examples??] I am not aware that the legal marriage framework grants either of these rights. The State no longer objects to sexual relationships between unmarried (adult) persons, and in many jurisdictions, marriage is not a prerequisite to adopt & conveys no rights of that kind.

It is disappointing Civil Unions, as a distinct vehicle from traditional marriage, has not been pursued by caring Christian countries instead to provide these separate legal protections.

Well, in many jurisdictions, they were! Civil Unions were offered as a means of meeting the requests (mainly from romantically involved same sex persons) for comparable rights. The State (reflective of community attitudes) certainly had no desire to revise the meaning of marriage at the time. However, many advocates for same sex couple “rights” were not satisfied with civil unions, on various grounds, including;

• They are not universally / internationally recognised;
• An unwillingness to accept a union differentiated from marriage.

Clearly the Catholic Church would only accept new kinds of unions if they were absent any implication that the CU is a marriage-look-alike. That itself would have made them even more unacceptable to those who today have fought for SSM.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Thorolfr;13474897]I’m sure that marriage does make the lives of many gay folks better.

The evidence says otherwise. That’s why one good reason why policy should not be base a person’s assurances.

It gives them legal protections that are not always easy to replicate by other means without the help of lawyers. Legally married gay folks also qualify for spousal and survivor benefits from Social Security and the military, health care benefits, etc. Perhaps you think that wanting all these protections and benefits is just being selfish on the part of gay folks, but do you also consider straight married folks who want these kinds of protections and benefits to be selfish?

I certainly think it is possible for straights to marry for the wrong reasons as well, which is also why their marriages have been regulated. However, so-called gay “marriage” presents unique problems for raising children, which is one of the only reasons why states even invest in marriage in the first place.

 

[Rau]

…A gay person can not live without “love.” But who is going to dare tell them the truth that they are actually MADE for love?

…What they’re not getting told is that God is commanding them, just like everyone, to LOVE one another… not to “withhold” their love, not to “repress” their God-given ability to love, not to live in hatred and fear of it… but to express it in Godly ways.

All that you write above seems equally applicable to every person. It is equally applicable when one recognises the nature of love, as in “Love one another”.

They get the message that they are not worthy of love on any human level, “because they are gay.”

If that’s true, then there is some misunderstanding of the nature of love.

The absolute most common thing I hear is… “Why can’t I love this person?”…If all the laity is doing when that question is asked is saying “Because God says so!” …We’re missing an opportunity. Because then they’re going to say “well then how can God be a God of love if he doesn’t want me to love this person? God must not be a loving God…” …

What they need to be taught is God is not just permitting them to love that person, but commanding them to love that person… truly love that person. Expressing a chaste love for that person, yes… what the Church calls “disinterested friendship” …

Now, when you narrow down the scope of what you write - essentially from “neighbour” (or “one another”) to “this person”, your meaning may be read ambiguously. By appearing to focus on one special relationship, readers may think you mean something different from “disinterested friendship”. While one may have only one spousal (love) relationship, no such limitation applies to relationships of “disinterested friendship”. And there are other differences too, including lack of permanence.

This is an interesting article on the meaning of “disinterested friendship”.
spiritualfriendship.org/2015/07/03/what-does-disinterested-friendship-mean/

 

[djames99]

Rejecting and getting rid of old patterns of behavior is not the end of the Christian life it is the first step.

Absolutely.

*They don’t go around angry thumping Bibles and harassing random people with “You’re going to burn in the lake of fire!” like many Christians do. *

So what approach would you advocate that works with you.? What information is it you are looking for that will have you sold.?

So far news of miracles don’t work. Evidence that the impossible has just been done is out also.

I’m just asking, nothing personal.

Once our Holy Mother as procured from the Father an alternate means to address this problem, the Church desires we pursue that means. News of a cure is a revelation. All should be leaping at the opportunity to appeal for a cure through the available means.

But this grace is not meant to be wasted. There is a dry period while sincerity and resolve is tested. We are watched to see if we make avail the Sacraments that are meant to cleanse us. We are watched to see if we give up, and make excuses. One needs to let go in trust. We will be watched for signs of wavering and attitude changes.

It is not a progressive climb for most, but a journey of failures and getting back up again. Depending on one’s disposition, it may take a while to see change. There is no ‘remote’ to turn off the ‘appliance’ as this generation is familiar with. Resolve is not a characteristic of this generation. Neither is sacrifice and doing things for others without reward. Denying oneself is shear lunacy.

But while we take on the challenge, we find hope in her saving promises.

1 Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive powerful graces.
2. I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary.
3. The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies
4. It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of people from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means.
5. The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish.
6. Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying Himself to the consideration of its Sacred Mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise Him in His justice, he shall not perish by an unprovided death; if he be just, he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life.
7. Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the Sacraments of the Church.
8. Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plentitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the Saints in Paradise.
9. I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary.
10. The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven.
11. You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary.
12. All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities.
13. I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the Rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death
14. All who recite the Rosary are my children, and brothers and sisters of my only Son, Jesus Christ.
15. Devotion of my Rosary is a great sign of predestination.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

A better question might be why does the State presume that elements of the legal framework associated with marriage might not be valuable in an altogether different (non-romantic) context? [Or at least a context where romantic involvement is not automatically assumed.

Yep, that’s pretty much what I said.

[What examples?..]

[/QUOTE]

 

[Rau]

…Catholic marriage clearly involves sexual and parental rights re the couple. If another similar institution does not do so what is there to object to apriori … if it is called marriage it is in fact so in name only.

You confuse the law with Catholic morality.

An apriori disordered sexual relationship does not make public endorsement of said relationship innocuous. It is not the (imagined) granting of rights by SSM that is objectionable, but the claims about the relationship that it makes. And that 1 in 1000 couples intended something else does not change that.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You confuse the law with Catholic morality.

An apriori disordered sexual relationship does not make public endorsement of said relationship innocuous. It is not the (imagined) granting of rights by SSM that is objectionable, but the claims about the relationship that it makes. And that 1 in 1000 couples intended something else does not change that.

It’s so easy to generalise the more complicated real world facts to prove ones own perspective and attempt to fantacise the many exceptions … I find such self deception an unsatisfactory approach to to discovery of truth myself.
Nothing further to see here, time to move on.

 

[Rau]

It’s so easy to generalise the more complicated real world facts to prove ones own perspective and attempt to fantacise the many exceptions … I find such self deception an unsatisfactory approach to to discovery of truth myself.
Nothing further to see here, time to move on.

What an odd post!

 

[marymary1975]

I know of situations where a gay man died or was incapacitated, and his estranged biological family barred his partner from visiting him in the hospital or attending the funeral. I’m not even sure that legal paperwork beforehand without marriage could easily have prevented this kind of thing from happening in the cases I know of.

The situation you described has nothing to do with marriage benefits, this is entirely hospital policy. All hospitals have different policies as to what they allow and this can happen even if you are married. Some hospitals give a preference to biological.family. if you run into a hospital with this policy it won’t.matter if you are married, decisions will.be up to biological family. Other hospitals may allow.anyone. It all boils down to.The internal.hospital.policy and yes a Helth Proxy drafted by an attorney has to be accepted by the hospital regardless of.civil.status. every person regardless of.marital status needs to have a health care proxy, if they don’t they are to the mercy of the hospital policy even if they are married.

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

The situation you described has nothing to do with marriage benefits, this is entirely hospital policy. All hospitals have different policies as to what they allow and this can happen even if you are married. Some hospitals give a preference to biological.family. if you run into a hospital with this policy it won’t.matter if you are married, decisions will.be up to biological family. Other hospitals may allow.anyone. It all boils down to.The internal.hospital.policy and yes a Helth Proxy drafted by an attorney has to be accepted by the hospital regardless of.civil.status. every person regardless of.marital status needs to have a health care proxy, if they don’t they are to the mercy of the hospital policy even if they are married.

Sorry, but you’re completely wrong, You are obviously trying to downplay the legal benefits of marriage in an attempt to discredit the need for legal protections as a legitimate motivation behind the fight for marriage equality. The problem is you’re making false claims in order to do so.

 

[Rau]

Sorry, but you’re completely wrong, You are obviously trying to downplay the legal benefits of marriage in an attempt to discredit the need for legal protections as a legitimate motivation behind the fight for marriage equality. The problem is you’re making false claims in order to do so.

One is not entitled to prostitute a good social institution in order to extract “benefits”. Marriage does not exist to confer "legal benefits. You are putting the cart before the horse.

 

[Sarah_B_Good]

One is not entitled to prostitute a good social institution in order to extract “benefits”. Marriage does not exist to confer "legal benefits. You are putting the cart before the horse.

Actually, that’s precisely what CIVIL Marriage does. It confers legal rights and responsibilities by means of a civil contract, which is legally enforceable. There are important distinctions to be made between civil and sacramental marriage, between legal and religious. You fail to acknowledge any such distinction when discussing marriage. That’s the problem.

 

[Rau]

Actually, that’s precisely what CIVIL Marriage does. It confers legal rights and responsibilities by means of a civil contract, which is legally enforceable. There are important distinctions to be made between civil and sacramental marriage, between legal and religious. You fail to acknowledge any such distinction when discussing marriage. That’s the problem.

Marriage (which needs no qualifier) is a sexual institution upon which society builds itself through the establishment of families. It began long before Christian religion and the invention of legal protections for it. The legal protections followed the realisation of the value of the institution - they are not the reason for it!

Were “civil marriage” as you call it merely a set of legal provisions, it would be more widely available. It would not be denied to siblings, as an example, yet it is explicitly denied to siblings by statute, almost everywhere.

Here is an interesting read on a closely related subject:
orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.php

 

[at9009]

Marriage (which needs no qualifier)
Were “civil marriage” as you call it merely a set of legal provisions, it would be more widely available. It would not be denied to siblings, as an example, yet it is explicitly denied to siblings by statute, almost everywhere.

You actually make a good point and one I’ve been wondering for a while. For example, why isn’t there an ability for adult siblings or good friends to be on the same health plan (they only seem to allow families or married couples). I think there are other things that are often open to married couples but not other that don’t really relate to marriage (health insurance being one of the main examples I can think of).

 

[Rau]

You actually make a good point and one I’ve been wondering for a while. For example, why isn’t there an ability for adult siblings or good friends to be on the same health plan (they only seem to allow families or married couples). I think there are other things that are often open to married couples but not other that don’t really relate to marriage (health insurance being one of the main examples I can think of).

These restrictions on who can marry make clear first and foremost the accepted nature of marriage. Siblings can’t marry becsuse of the nature of marriage. Nothing to do with legal rights.