Let's STOP gay marriage now!

[estesbob]

You lost me the moment you compared Homosexuality to Kleptomania. Just like Perry when he compared it to Alcoholism. You’re basically slapping someone in the face and saying their love is not valid, but is in fact an abomination, and if you act upon that love, get married, and shocking have sex/make love to that person, that act is in fact a mortal sin and you’re going to hell. This is why gay marriage will become legal in all 50 states, you can’t use that comparison.

You keep waving around the word the “love” like the sword of Excalibur expecting everybody to back down at it’s mere invocation. However we’re not talking about love here. We’re talking about whether a group of people whose only defining characteristic is the manner in which they engage in sex should be accorded the same protected status as race, creed, gender, and country of national origin. We’re talking about this same group demanding we change the definition of age old institutions to accommodate their sexual behavior. Now you can call it love of you want but it seems a stretch to believe that anyone that was really in love would involve the one they are in love with in physically ,spiritually and emotionally debilitating behavior.

I believe the problem is, as is common in our culture ,you are confusing love and lust. In the " if it feels good do it" society we live in this is a very common error. But please don’t equate two men grappling in bed with the pure, everlasting love as expressed by our Savior. Love never expresses itself to sin. Love never encourages us to lead others to sin. Love is patient , love is kind, but love is not sodomy.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

Catholic teaching says two homosexuals can’t have sex.
Catholic teaching says two homosexuals can’t have a valid marriage in the church.
Where does Catholic teaching say two homosexuals can’t enter into a legal contract?

Civil marriage and religious marriage are not the same thing. Civil marriage is in fact nothing more than a contract – which is why even Catholics can receive a civil divorce.

 

[EasterJoy]

You lost me the moment you compared Homosexuality to Kleptomania. Just like Perry when he compared it to Alcoholism. You’re basically slapping someone in the face and saying their love is not valid, but is in fact an abomination, and if you act upon that love, get married, and shocking have sex/make love to that person, that act is in fact a mortal sin and you’re going to hell. This is why gay marriage will become legal in all 50 states, you can’t use that comparison.

I get the feeling that you were lost long before you showed up here. Moral law does not depend on what is or is not recognized “in all 50 states,” any more than it depended on what was legalized by any other secular society in history.

Again with the red herring on “love.” Filial affection, mutual caring, and other things that deserve to be called love are not what is at issue here. No one is berating anyone for those things, nor calling them invalid. Those things, however praiseworthy they might be, do not elevate homosexual acts, which are intrinsically disordered, to the equivalent of the marital embrace, which is an act that accords with the way the human body is structured and the way the human race perpetuates itself. If you want to talk about insulting, pretending there is no difference is what is insulting…and yes, it is shocking that a person of normal intelligence *can actually pretend to not see any difference at all *between heterosexual relations and the things that homosexuals are confined to doing together. When college-educated people embrace such an obvious falsehood for the sake of fitting in and not upsetting people who will not be crossed, we have arrived in the age of Doublethink, there is no doubt about that.

 

[Joe_5859]

But does your objection revolve purely around the belief that:

A. Homosexuality is a sin

It is quite sad though that many people do indeed “Hate” Gay people because they believe this. Especially when they say “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Sadly, the 2 are not that easy to separate.

I counter that many people, even Catholics are beginning to believe that:

A. Homosexuality is not a sin

therefore it still becomes a battle of civil rights vs moral right and wrong?

I’m glad you will be sticking around.

I agree with Paul in that my view of marriage has nothing to do with any sort of prior negative view of gay people.

My approach to this issue really doesn’t have much to do with homosexuality at all. Marriage is something by nature. It is a natural institution whereby a man and a woman (who are by their nature biologically complementary) are united in a permanent commitment for the good of each other and any children who result from such a union.

That what marriage is excludes certain other types of relationships is not a source of malice or anything like that. Marriage is what it is. And what isn’t marriage isn’t marriage. I object to people trying to say that something that isn’t marriage really is marriage because it leads people to view marriage as something other than what it really is.

In other words, my reasoning is not: homosexual activity is a sin, therefore gay marriage is wrong.

Rather, my reasoning is: marriage is a union between a man and a woman that unites them to each other and children born from their union. Since two people of the same sex cannot have that type of natural union, their relationship cannot be considered a marriage.

None of this is to say that gay couples don’t love each other. I’m sure they do. But that relationship can never be a marriage. It doesn’t fit the definition. And that definition is not an arbitrary social construct. It’s written into our biology.

 

[WilT]

Ill let the Vicar of Christ respond to this"

*“Let’s not be naive, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God,” wrote Cardinal Bergoglio (now Pope Francis)in a letter sent to the monasteries of Buenos Aires. “We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.” *

I agree:thumbsup:

 

[GenerationZ]

Stop gay marriage now? Why don’t we just try to blow up the Sun while we’re at it? Both pursuits are equally productive uses of one’s own time and energy. The Sun will certainly die out on its own someday, but it definitely won’t be NOW or anytime soon for that matter, and nothing we do can have an impact on hastening that occurrence. Likewise, gay marriage isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, and nothing anyone does can change that or reverse the trend, so we’ll just need to wait this one out. Let things run their course… If gay marriage is really that bad, the issue is going to probably resolve itself once everyone sees how bad it is. But as far as the present is concerned, I don’t think it is wise to waste one’s time by trying to achieve the impossible. Life is short, so let’s try to have a positive impact on this world rather than dabbling in pursuits that will yield no results.

Don’t get me wrong. There are some places where gay marriages can be stopped, like the Middle East and most African nations. Then there are some places where gay marriage can’t be stopped, like the United States and many of the most developed nations in the modern world.

Some people might consider the trends in the United States to be especially concerning. Not only does the majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, but even the majority of American Catholics seem to be on board with it too. Plus, there is the generational problem, where over two-thirds of young people support same-sex marriage, which will certainly only rapidly increase during the next few years as same-sex couples become commonplace. At this point, nationwide recognition of same-sex relationships is pretty much inevitable.

I don’t say this to condemn or condone any specific type of behavior. I’m just acknowledging the reality of the situation. There are some who are still desperately trying to preserve unconstitutional marriage laws, and in many ways I find their conviction and determination to be admirable. But, the cultural tides have shifted so dramatically that all those efforts will be rendered ineffective.

Rather than focusing so much on such an unnecessary pursuit, maybe all that energy can be channeled toward something more productive… You know, like trying to stop or discourage things that actually cause much more significant harm to the family and society at large.

I mean, clearly those who support marriage bans believe that government should operate paternalistically by banning or discouraging things that cause meaningful harm to the public. So, I think those who are fighting marriage equality should instead try to target the alcohol industry, the tobacco industry, the gambling industry, the gun industry, and so on… you know, things that tear apart families everyday in much more real ways than gay marriage ever could.

Besides, improving these detrimental parts of society may make other issues easier to address down the road. When a house is on fire, do you try to fix the broken plumbing first? No, you put out the fire and then later fix the plumbing. There are more pressing issues that we should be dealing with at the moment. Same-sex marriage is so insignificant and innocuous by comparison, and it would almost be irresponsible to devote so much attention to this matter at the expense of neglecting actual issues of consequence.

We should be trying to strategically tackle issues in society so that our efforts don’t go to waste. At the present, investing time and energy toward opposing marriage equality is an exercise in futility. Let’s get our priorities in order and go after more important issues that we can actually make some progress on. The health of the family depends on such a tactical approach.

Maybe public opinion will change in the marriage debate once the destructive impact of marriage equality becomes obvious… unless there are no apparent negative effects, in which case… well shucks, that would make it even more difficult to win public support, then. But, hey, if marriage equality doesn’t eventually cause widespread societal devastation, then that’s only more of a reason to focus on the other detrimental issues that do undeniably ravage society on a daily basis.

 

[theCrow]

I get the feeling that you were lost long before you showed up here. Moral law does not depend on what is or is not recognized “in all 50 states,” any more than it depended on what was legalized by any other secular society in history.

Again with the red herring on “love.” Filial affection, mutual caring, and other things that deserve to be called love are not what is at issue here. No one is berating anyone for those things, nor calling them invalid. Those things, however praiseworthy they might be, do not elevate homosexual acts, which are intrinsically disordered, to the equivalent of the marital embrace, which is an act that accords with the way the human body is structured and the way the human race perpetuates itself. If you want to talk about insulting, pretending there is no difference is what is insulting…and yes, it is shocking that a person of normal intelligence *can actually pretend to not see any difference at all *between heterosexual relations and the things that homosexuals are confined to doing together. When college-educated people embrace such an obvious falsehood for the sake of fitting in and not upsetting people who will not be crossed, we have arrived in the age of Doublethink, there is no doubt about that.

Not a red herring at all. I’ve recently met a gay couple who have been together for 27 YEARS! They love each other and are committed to each other. How dare I, or anyone call their love “intrinsically disordered!.” Just as the Pope says, Who am I to judge? It is because of couples like these, that is why I’ve changed my view on gay marriage and homosexuality in general. When I see them holding hands or kissing in public, I cannot equate this or anything they choose to do in their bedroom an egregious horrible grave sin. I just cannot accept that. But I do still consider myself Catholic, is this possible? Pray for me. Pray for love.

 

[PaulGH]

I’m glad you will be sticking around.

I agree with Paul in that my view of marriage has nothing to do with any sort of prior negative view of gay people.

My approach to this issue really doesn’t have much to do with homosexuality at all. Marriage is something by nature. It is a natural institution whereby a man and a woman (who are by their nature biologically complementary) are united in a permanent commitment for the good of each other and any children who result from such a union.

That what marriage is excludes certain other types of relationships is not a source of malice or anything like that. Marriage is what it is. And what isn’t marriage isn’t marriage. I object to people trying to say that something that isn’t marriage really is marriage because it leads people to view marriage as something other than what it really is.

In other words, my reasoning is not: homosexual activity is a sin, therefore gay marriage is wrong.

Rather, my reasoning is: marriage is a union between a man and a woman that unites them to each other and children born from their union. Since two people of the same sex cannot have that type of natural union, their relationship cannot be considered a marriage.

None of this is to say that gay couples don’t love each other. I’m sure they do. But that relationship can never be a marriage. It doesn’t fit the definition. And that definition is not an arbitrary social construct. It’s written into our biology.

Very well said.

 

[pensmama87]

Not a red herring at all. I’ve recently met a gay couple who have been together for 27 YEARS! They love each other and are committed to each other. How dare I, or anyone call their love “intrinsically disordered!.” Just as the Pope says, Who am I to judge? It is because of couples like these, that is why I’ve changed my view on gay marriage and homosexuality in general. When I see them holding hands or kissing in public, I cannot equate this or anything they choose to do in their bedroom an egregious horrible grave sin. I just cannot accept that. But I do still consider myself Catholic, is this possible? Pray for me. Pray for love.

“Love” is not the issue. The issue is that it is not the natural order of things for two men or two women to perform sexual acts on each other. They cannot complete the marital act. It is impossible. They may deeply care for each other, but the love they have is not marital, because it is not conjugal. That is what we mean when we say “intrinsically disordered.” It is contrary to the purpose of the sexual organs to use them in the only way that two men and two women can use them with each other. (This also explains the rest of Catholic teaching on sexuality - why contraception, abortion, fornication, and adultery are wrong - sexuality is designed to promulgate the species, and it is immoral to use the sexual organs for purposes they are not designed for. Just like it’s immoral to overindulge in food, alcohol, or other substances. It is contrary to their nature.)

 

[JimG]

Not a red herring at all. I’ve recently met a gay couple who have been together for 27 YEARS! They love each other and are committed to each other. How dare I, or anyone call their love “intrinsically disordered!.” Just as the Pope says, Who am I to judge? It is because of couples like these, that is why I’ve changed my view on gay marriage and homosexuality in general. When I see them holding hands or kissing in public, I cannot equate this or anything they choose to do in their bedroom an egregious horrible grave sin. I just cannot accept that. But I do still consider myself Catholic, is this possible? Pray for me. Pray for love.

My sister and her daughter have also been living together for 27 years. They love each other. They care for each other. They are not married to each other. I suppose they could demand marriage equality; it would be beneficial to file a joint tax return. But that’s not legal. Yet. Still, marriage equality is marriage equality. Why should we give it only to restricted categories, and not to others?

 

[PaulGH]

Not a red herring at all. I’ve recently met a gay couple who have been together for 27 YEARS! They love each other and are committed to each other. How dare I, or anyone call their love “intrinsically disordered!.” Just as the Pope says, Who am I to judge? It is because of couples like these, that is why I’ve changed my view on gay marriage and homosexuality in general. When I see them holding hands or kissing in public, I cannot equate this or anything they choose to do in their bedroom an egregious horrible grave sin. I just cannot accept that. But I do still consider myself Catholic, is this possible? Pray for me. Pray for love.

I don’t question that most gay couples truly love each other. But your argument seems to rest on the premise that any two people who love each other should be able to marry each other. I would disagree with that premise, and I would ask how you arrive at that premise?

And does this mean that you also would support marriage between close relatives (e.g., brother/sister, uncle/niece, father/daughter, etc.) as long as they love each other? Does it mean that you would support group marriages consisting of three or more people, if the prerequisite love is there?

Or what if a couple has a non-sexual type of love – can they marry? For example, if two straight male best friends wish to share a house and share expenses, can they get married to each other simply for legal/financial purposes?

Or what if two people wish to marry each other, but they don’t love each other? Should they be able to marry, in your view?

 

[theCrow]

“Love” is not the issue. The issue is that it is not the natural order of things for two men or two women to perform sexual acts on each other. They cannot complete the marital act. It is impossible. They may deeply care for each other, but the love they have is not marital, because it is not conjugal. That is what we mean when we say “intrinsically disordered.” It is contrary to the purpose of the sexual organs to use them in the only way that two men and two women can use them with each other. (This also explains the rest of Catholic teaching on sexuality - why contraception, abortion, fornication, and adultery are wrong - sexuality is designed to promulgate the species, and it is immoral to use the sexual organs for purposes they are not designed for. Just like it’s immoral to overindulge in food, alcohol, or other substances. It is contrary to their nature.)

LOVE is EXACTLY the issue. So you are saying that there must be a penis and a vagina to “complete the marital act?” What about those born with both sex organs, or perhaps no sex organs? Then what?

I find it sad because by only talking about this on a biological level, we are indeed refusing to even accept or believe for just one second that Gay people are able to experience true love, romantic love, and sexual love. Because by believing that the latter two forms are sinful, evil and intrinsically disordered, one can’t possibly begin to accept the other opinion.

 

[estesbob]

LOVE is EXACTLY the issue. So you are saying that there must be a penis and a vagina to “complete the marital act?” What about those born with both sex organs, or perhaps no sex organs? Then what?

I find it sad because by only talking about this on a biological level, we are indeed refusing to even accept or believe for just one second that Gay people are able to experience true love, romantic love, and sexual love. Because by believing that the latter two forms are sinful, evil and intrinsically disordered, one can’t possibly begin to accept the other opinion.

So “love” justifies all? Our Church disagrees with you and has so for two thousand years. What is it you know that somehow escaped them all these years?

 

[BillP]

Why would we “impose” the traditional definition of marriage? Well, for one thing, it is strange to talk of imposing a definition of marriage that virtually all societies, all religions, and all governments agreed on throughout the world and throughout history, until the very recent past – maybe 15 to 20 years ago

You are historically misinformed. Virtually all societies before the advent of Christianity practiced polygamy, rather than monogamy. Most societies (Including Jews) had marriages that were not regarded as permanent. In the 10,000 or so years of human civilization, one man, one women, indissoluble marriages are a relatively recent and short lived phenomenon.

 

[estesbob]

You are historically misinformed. Virtually all societies before the advent of Christianity practiced polygamy, rather than monogamy. Most societies (Including Jews) had marriages that were not regarded as permanent. In the 10,000 or so years of human civilization, one man, one women, indissoluble marriages are a relatively recent and short lived phenomenon.

And how long a phenomenon has same sex marriage been?

 

[pensmama87]

LOVE is EXACTLY the issue. **So you are saying that there must be a penis and a vagina to “complete the marital act?” What about those born with both sex organs, or perhaps no sex organs? Then what? **

I find it sad because by only talking about this on a biological level, we are indeed refusing to even accept or believe for just one second that Gay people are able to experience true love, romantic love, and sexual love. Because by believing that the latter two forms are sinful, evil and intrinsically disordered, one can’t possibly begin to accept the other opinion.

Ability to consummate is necessary to contract a valid marriage. But Catholicism does not teach that sexual love is the only true love or the best kind of love. It is important, yes, but it is not necessary to live a holy and fulfilling life. Inability to marry does not mean a person has failed at life.

Our society puts way too much emphasis on sexual pleasure as the pinnacle of human freedom and experience. It is not. It is very important in the marital relationship - St. John Paul II has some great things to say about it - but it is not necessary for all.

The reality is that we are fallen and we are subject to various vices and disordered tendencies - all of us. In some societies certain disordered tendencies, for whatever reason, become elevated as good. It hasn’t always been sex. IIRC in ancient Rome there were specific places a person could go to eat so much extra food they had to throw it up.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Those against same-sex marriage are on the wrong side of history, and they know it, but they cannot help but cling to their beliefs, no matter how wrong they are. Even for those who are not religious or belief-driven, there is what is known as “fear of the other,” an irrational distrust of anyone who is different.

But deep down, the anti-gay folks know that they are badly out of touch. They just can’t help themselves. It must be truly sad to live like them. The thought of experiencing how their brains function each day–hating people who do them no harm, fearing people who do them no harm–depresses me to no end.

Now that you have made yourself painfully obvious, and don’t want to discuss actual points being made but would rather engage in suppositions and semi-insults, shouldn’t you be looking for the Three Billy Goats Gruff right about now?

 

[HappyCatholic01]

Those against same-sex marriage are on the wrong side of history, and they know it, but they cannot help but cling to their beliefs, no matter how wrong they are. Even for those who are not religious or belief-driven, there is what is known as “fear of the other,” an irrational distrust of anyone who is different.

But deep down, the anti-gay folks know that they are badly out of touch. They just can’t help themselves. It must be truly sad to live like them. The thought of experiencing how their brains function each day–hating people who do them no harm, fearing people who do them no harm–depresses me to no end.

Since this is a catholic website, whose members adhere to some standards of decency and maturity, you aren’t going to goad many people into an insult contest. If that was there goal, they wouldn’t be here; they’d go searching out forums where the members support gay marriage, like you do. Instead, you came here, with an obvious agenda.

Now that you have made yourself painfully obvious, and don’t want to discuss actual points being made but would rather engage in suppositions and semi-insults, shouldn’t you be looking for the Three Billy Goats Gruff right about now?

 

[JimG]

And how long a phenomenon has same sex marriage been?

Historically speaking, for millennia, marriage has always been between man and woman, whether it involved monogamy or polygamy. Same sex behaviors were often rejected, but sometimes accepted. Even in those societies that accepted same sex relationships, they did not recognize them as marriage, since they had nothing to do with marriage. It is only in our very recent and disordered times that same sex ‘marriage’ has been thought a possibility, though it is not.

 

[EasterJoy]

Not a red herring at all. I’ve recently met a gay couple who have been together for 27 YEARS! They love each other and are committed to each other. How dare I, or anyone call their love “intrinsically disordered!.” Just as the Pope says, Who am I to judge? It is because of couples like these, that is why I’ve changed my view on gay marriage and homosexuality in general. When I see them holding hands or kissing in public, I cannot equate this or anything they choose to do in their bedroom an egregious horrible grave sin. I just cannot accept that. But I do still consider myself Catholic, is this possible? Pray for me. Pray for love.

One more time: their mutual affection is not disordered. The sexual acts are disordered. The rightness of their mutual affection does not sanctify the disordered acts.

How dare I call those acts intrinsically disordered? Well, because the New Testament says so and the unbroken Tradition of the Church has maintained that this is so, as well. The Church teaches it is so even now. It is not that hard.