LGBT, secular unions

[dwc]

Secular marriage is just in many cases polygamy two people at a time. This does nothing to protect society or its children. What we have now does not provide for the good of the nation. If secular marriage does not protect those involved then it should not exist IMHO.

I’m not sure what you mean by polygamy – are you saying people divorce and remarry and that’s polygamy? Do you conclude that because the first marriage failed the second marriage is naturally a failure and will provide no benefit to the spouses or children of it? What about the secular marriages that ARE successful and don’t end in divorce? Do you think we should toss them all out because some fail?

What about the church marriages that fail? By your reasoning, we should also prohibit all church marriages, because many fail.

I know many people who do not belong to a particular church and are not religious, but who have strong marriages, strong families and do a good job raising their children. How can you possibly make the blanket statements that you make?

---

 

[TShawn]

Can someone show me exactly HOW same sex unions de-stabilize traditional marriage? I am truly open if someone can tell me how marriage as it is now between a man and a woman is threatened by same-sex unions? I’m not really too interested in the “because they can’t have children” argument only because there are many marriages where there are no children for whatever reason yet these are happily recognized by the Church as well. Thanks for helping! - Tshawn

 

[iamrefreshed]

Also, the use of “disorder” and “disordered” portrays them as lesser people in all of our eyes, which is not the case.

Then you put your opinion above church teaching. You are being disobedient to the pope.

I also use the second greatest commandment and want (if possible for two monogamous people) the chance to be together with each other for the rest of their lives and all the ups and downs a relationship like that pertains. I see the other person as their love of their life, and if that is their life partner then I wish them the best until their natural deaths.

When Jesus spoke on marriage He used the words man and woman, husband and wife.

Besides the second greatest commandment Jesus also told us to love our enemies. He didn’t mean physical love. You are twisting the second greatest commandment. And by supporting SSM you are actually disobeying the second greatest commandment. It is so sad to see a catholic do that.

 

[fix]

Can someone show me exactly HOW same sex unions de-stabilize traditional marriage? I am truly open if someone can tell me how marriage as it is now between a man and a woman is threatened by same-sex unions? I’m not really too interested in the “because they can’t have children” argument only because there are many marriages where there are no children for whatever reason yet these are happily recognized by the Church as well. Thanks for helping! - Tshawn

Please start here.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I’m not sure what you mean by polygamy – are you saying people divorce and remarry and that’s polygamy? Do you conclude that because the first marriage failed the second marriage is naturally a failure and will provide no benefit to the spouses or children of it? What about the secular marriages that ARE successful and don’t end in divorce? Do you think we should toss them all out because some fail?

What about the church marriages that fail? By your reasoning, we should also prohibit all church marriages, because many fail.

I know many people who do not belong to a particular church and are not religious, but who have strong marriages, strong families and do a good job raising their children. How can you possibly make the blanket statements that you make?

---

Not because of failure, but because in remarriage without an annulment there are then two wives or two husbands. This then becomes legal polygamy.

 

[Riley259]

Is it objectively sinful by official Church teaching to be against gay marriage, though support secular LGBT unions?

The U.S. was founded on the principal of religious freedom, so I can’t see any arguments apart from religious morality that same-sex unions should not be allowed from a government standpoint, even if it is obvious they shouldn’t be allowed religious-wise.

If the same-sex unions are sexual in nature then it is always wrong to support them. Only in a valid, sacramental marriage is it acceptable to have sexual expression.

 

[Steadfast_love]

Can someone show me exactly HOW same sex unions de-stabilize traditional marriage? I am truly open if someone can tell me how marriage as it is now between a man and a woman is threatened by same-sex unions? I’m not really too interested in the “because they can’t have children” argument only because there are many marriages where there are no children for whatever reason yet these are happily recognized by the Church as well. Thanks for helping! - Tshawn

That’s a good question. Marriage has already been destabilized by divorce, wife swapping, spousal abuse, prostitution and so forth. In each case, those sins destabilize marriage by deforming a truth about marriage. For example…

Divorce deforms the truth that marital love is life long devotion.
Wife swapping deforms the truth that marital love is exclusive.
Spousal abuse deforms the truth that marital love is freely given between equals.
Prostitution deforms all of the above truths (life long, exclusive and freely given)

So… if you don’t know why the Church is against homosexual “marriage” the next step is to figure out what marital truth homosexual acts deform.

The truth is that marital love is between a man and a woman. It might be funny to say that someone is “married” to some of the other passions in their lives i.e. “He’s married to the golf course” or “She’s married to World of Warcraft” but to elevate those good natured jests to the same standing as marriage deforms a marital truth: No man can marry a golf course. No woman can marry a video game.

In otherwords, homosexuality isn’t being singled out in this regard. Any attempt to deform the marital truth “man and wife” will be met with similar denouncements. For example “Men and wife,” “Man and wives,” “Men and wives,” “Man alone,” “Wife alone” “Man and animal,” “Wife and animal,” “Man and corpse” etc… have already been denounced because they too deform the marital truth “man and wife.”

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Then you put your opinion above church teaching. You are being disobedient to the pope.

When Jesus spoke on marriage He used the words man and woman, husband and wife.

Besides the second greatest commandment Jesus also told us to love our enemies. He didn’t mean physical love. You are twisting the second greatest commandment. And by supporting SSM you are actually disobeying the second greatest commandment. It is so sad to see a catholic do that.

I was referencing the Pope’s opinion statement on this. His is only one theological view in the Church among many. It is also not ex cathadra so it can be discussed easily.

What is “love”? BXVI wrote a detailed piece on this. A same-gender preference couple’s love is no different than a different-gender preference couple’s love. The same human emotions are happening.

I can see there are many views on the purpose of the second greatest commandment. It also goes along with our daily struggle to see Jesus in everyone we come across. To “love one another as you love yourself” is to want the best for them. I see a couple who loves each other and wants to spend the rest of their lives together in a normal, monogamous relationship until they die. I try to look inside them and if they are of the same gender it does not matter as they will love, nurture, and protect each other while they are still able.

 

[blessedtoo]

I was referencing the Pope’s opinion statement on this. His is only one theological view in the Church among many. It is also not ex cathadra so it can be discussed easily.

You seem like an earnest and well intentioned Catholic and I appreciate your presence here on CAF. However, after reading your posts on this topic (and several others regarding issues of morality), I would suggest that you have been woefully misguided on the tenets of your faith. It is not the “Pope’s opinion” nor is it any individual opinion that holds Catholics to the truth of morality. If you don’t believe the Bible is binding truth, and that the CCC is open to interpretation, or that the Pope’s statements since the birth of the Church are only “opinions”, then you need a refresher course in Catholicism.

What is “love”? BXVI wrote a detailed piece on this. A same-gender preference couple’s love is no different than a different-gender preference couple’s love. The same human emotions are happening.

Yes, he did. And you will not find this assertion ANYWHERE in his great encyclical. In fact, his statements, which completely support Tradition and Scripture, put to rest any confusion one might have on the true meaning of “love”. If you have somehow interpreted his words to include acceptance of homosexual behavior, you have made a serious error.

I can see there are many views on the purpose of the second greatest commandment. It also goes along with our daily struggle to see Jesus in everyone we come across. To “love one another as you love yourself” is to want the best for them.

The issue here is your idea of “what is the best for them”. You seem to believe that the fulfillment of earthly desires and the needs of the flesh are more important than eternal salvation. A Catholic who understands his faith recognizes that this life involves some measure of suffering and that we are asked to carry our crosses, no matter what size they are, until we hopefully pass through the Heavenly gates. In your misguided desire to see people “happy” in this life, you have subverted the moral law and teaching of your Church and put at risk the ultimate “best” for those who are our brothers and sisters in Christ.

I see a couple who loves each other and wants to spend the rest of their lives together in a normal, monogamous relationship until they die. I try to look inside them and if they are of the same gender it does not matter as they will love, nurture, and protect each other while they are still able.

Compassion, empathy and understanding are all necessary Christian qualities. But you have a convoluted understanding of how to express this. Loving others, in the way Christ commanded, does not equal the acceptance of sin, no matter how you attempt to twist it.

 

[fix]

What is “love”? BXVI wrote a detailed piece on this. A same-gender preference couple’s love is no different than a different-gender preference couple’s love. The same human emotions are happening.

Emotions?

2075 “What good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” - “If you would enter into life, keep the commandments” (*Mt *19:16-17).

 

[iamrefreshed]

I was referencing the Pope’s opinion statement on this. His is only one theological view in the Church among many. It is also not ex cathadra so it can be discussed easily.

Please show me your cite where the pope supports same sex unions.

What is “love”? BXVI wrote a detailed piece on this. A same-gender preference couple’s love is no different than a different-gender preference couple’s love. The same human emotions are happening.

Pleas show me your cite where the pope supports same sex unions.

Do you know what happens to the ones who lead the faithful astray? It has something to do with your neck, a millstone and the sea.

I can see there are many views on the purpose of the second greatest commandment. It also goes along with our daily struggle to see Jesus in everyone we come across. To “love one another as you love yourself” is to want the best for them. I see a couple who loves each other and wants to spend the rest of their lives together in a normal, monogamous relationship until they die. I try to look inside them and if they are of the same gender it does not matter as they will love, nurture, and protect each other while they are still able.

Completely your opinion and 100% against catholic teaching. See above comment about millstone.

 

[Dale_M]

What is “love”? BXVI wrote a detailed piece on this. A same-gender preference couple’s love is no different than a different-gender preference couple’s love. The same human emotions are happening.

I believe you are referring to the encyclical Deus Caritas est (God is Love).
I am sorry to join the crowd questioning you, but if that is the document you have in mind, you may want to give it another look-over.
Deus Caritas est:

While the biblical narrative does not speak of punishment, the idea is certainly present that man is somehow incomplete, driven by nature to seek in another the part that can make him whole, the idea that only in communion with the opposite sex can he become “complete”. The biblical account thus concludes with a prophecy about Adam: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

Two aspects of this are important. First, eros is somehow rooted in man’s very nature; Adam is a seeker, who “abandons his mother and father” in order to find woman; only together do the two represent complete humanity and become “one flesh”. The second aspect is equally important. From the standpoint of creation, eros directs man towards marriage, to a bond which is unique and definitive; thus, and only thus, does it fulfil its deepest purpose.

Earlier in the document, the contention that homosexual love is sanctioned may have been plausible. But Pope Benedict is pretty clear here that he is referring to man + woman = completed human(s).

I think you are entertaining an interpretation of his words that he would reject.