Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[LJN21]

Hi! I don’t want to get into semantics, but what about a paralyzed person who wants to marry someone else? A couple who wants to get married but cannot or does not want to have children, or even have sex of any kind? Should they be allowed to get married?

If someone is completely impotent, they can not contract a marriage. If a couple never has sex there marriage is never consummated and can be simply walked away from at anytime and would be found even by most states null (having never happened). Children are the natural byproduct of marriage, however the ability to have them (fertility) is is not relevant when a marriage is contracted.

BTW not wanting to get in to semantics is a cop out, we have words, they mean things. Some mean very specific things, and wanting to reassign their meanings as you see fit is part of why we have this marriage debate to start with. The mere ability to debate anything hinges on semantics.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Hey everyone. I am a Catholic. I converted to the Catholic Church in 2006 and I used to agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on gay marriage. I used to agree that it is wrong but I do not agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on it anymore. I think that there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, I think it is necessary for it to be legalized in order to protect the rights of same sex couples. For example, without gay marriage, many same sex couples would not have visitation rights in hospitals. They also probably would not be able to file their taxes jointly and get other benefits that married couples can get. I also think that by legalizing gay marriage it would help to reduce the bigotry that is out there against same sex couples and those who deal with same sex attraction. I think we can all agree that there is too much hatred out there for people who deal with it. I am not blaming Catholics for this hatred. I am saying that the hatred exists among the general population and I think that legalizing gay marriage would help to reduce that hatred because people would get used to the reality of gay marriage and as they are more exposed to it they would realize that same sex couples are not as bad as they thought they were originally. Its just that there are a lot of stereotypes out there and I think that legalization of same sex marriage could help to reduce that stereotypes and stigma by showing people the reality of same sex relationships and such.

So anyway, I know that there are a lot of religious reasons for being opposed to same sex marriage but I live in the United States and laws cannot be based on religion here because of the separation of church and state. I am all for separation of church and state. I think it would be incredibly stupid to start creating laws based on religious teachings. So, if you will defend the teaching of the Catholic Church that same sex marriage is wrong and should be illegal then please try to rely on arguments that are not exclusively religious in nature because those don’t hold much sway with me.

This is from a non-Catholic Christian, but it does provide an argument on tax etc. issues:

It’s true that homosexual couples do not have the same legal benefits as married heterosexuals regarding taxation, family leave, health care, hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. However, no other non-marital relationships between individuals–non-gay brothers, a pair of spinsters, college roommates, fraternity brothers–share those benefits, either. Why should they? If homosexual couples face “unequal protection” in this area, so does every other pair of unmarried citizens who have deep, loving commitments to each other. Why should gays get preferential treatment just because they are sexually involved? The government gives special benefits to marriages and not to others for good reason. It’s not because they involve long-term, loving, committed relationships. Many others qualify there. It’s because they involve children. Inheritance rights flow naturally to progeny. Tax relief for families eases the financial burden children make on paychecks. Insurance policies reflect the unique relationship between a wage earner and his or her dependents (if Mom stays home to care for kids, she–and they–are still covered).These circumstances, inherent to families, simply are not intrinsic to other relationships, as a rule, including homosexual ones. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to “stabilize” the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.

str.org/Media/Default/Publications/June%202004-2.pdf

Heterosexual couples who can not have children because of infertility, as I may have seen posted somewhere, are the exception, not the rule.

 

[Jon_S_1]

If you think these things are okay and the Church is wrong than you’re not really Catholic and why do you listen to any teachings if you think they are wrong? That does not make sense.

Just because they do not see it as wrong does not mean it is not wrong. For example, there are people in the Middle East using the Quran to justify raping Christian girls. They do not see at as wrong, but rape is still wrong. Not that masturbation and contraception are as bad as rape, I only used rape because there is no circumstance someone could justify it no matter how much of a relativist they are.

Gay people can not get married. Calling something marriage does not make it marriage.

FYI CENA, the person you’re arguing with is a Buddhist.

 

[bisco1]

All I know is I make the same money now as when I was married and I pay double the taxes.

wow.

 

[spiderweb]

This topic is starting to get out of hand with the name calling as these topics often do. I hope this can stay on topic so it doesn’t get closed.

The real discussion is about what the institution of marriage actually is and why there are laws that pertain to it. It doesn’t matter how some people subjectively believe what marriage is. It is what is objectively true for all of humanity what marriage is.

Take away all government laws pertaining to marriage and people would still be getting married for the primary purpose of having and raising children in a stable family environment.

Take away all government laws pertaining to marriage how many people not interested in having children would still insist that it’s only fair that they be married? People would simply co-habitate and not worry about if they are married or not.

It doesn’t matter how many people abuse marriage. The abuses only show that there is an objective standard of what marriage actually is, and not what any individual person, group, or legislature says that it is.

 

[cena]

FYI CENA, the person you’re arguing with is a Buddhist.

Oh my bad, must have confused him with someone else.

 

[cena]

For many people, this is indeed the definition of marriage.
Children can and are often a result of marriage, of course. But there are many couples who cannot or do not have children, and still have marriages. Marriage isn’t only for couples who are having children. If that were the case, we would ban infertile people or people who don’t intend to have children from getting married.
And we don’t.

If this was something we were actually enforcing, then all the children who have been adopted over the centuries would have no homes.

I don’t know what you mean here at all.
How are children being objectified if couples who get married are “a romantic relationship between two consenting adults”?
How are we suffering?
There are many children who are the fruit of an adoptive couple–be they heterosexual or homosexual.
To call those children “commodified accessories of our romantic relationships” is not fair at all, to the parents or the children. You yourself are either not seeing or are erasing all the love, loyalty, and commitment in these relationships and families.
That, IMO, is what is making society and our culture today suffer as a whole.

.

Adopted children still have a father and mother. They are just not the biological ones.

When he called them commodities I think he was talking about IVF and surrogacy.

If a couple is infertile it is not because men and women can not produce babies together. It is an exception. With homosexual couples they can never conceive naturally. Infertile couples can still marry because there are two purposes: for unity and procreation. They can still have the first one.

In the Catholic Church if both people never intended to have kids (I.e. Using contraception) they could apply for an annulment because their marriage was never valid.

 

[spiderweb]

For many people, this is indeed the definition of marriage.
Children can and are often a result of marriage, of course. But there are many couples who cannot or do not have children, and still have marriages. Marriage isn’t only for couples who are having children. If that were the case, we would ban infertile people or people who don’t intend to have children from getting married.
And we don’t.

True some people by nature cannot have children. The law does not prohibit people that don’t intend to have children from getting married. However the Catholic Church does say that to intend not to have children and deliberately not have children is an impediment to marriage, because that deliberately abuses what marriage is.

True some people get married intending to have children but later find out that they cannot for whatever reason. It is totally two different things to deliberately have a surgery to become sterile, or use contraception to block fertilization, then to be naturally sterile, or beyond child bearing years. In the case of same sex couples, even though both may be fertile and capable of reproduction, there is no possibility for it because either one person cannot receive the sperm, or one person has no sperm to give to fertilize the egg. This is not the primary purpose of marriage.

 

[Rau]

Hey everyone. I am a Catholic. I converted to the Catholic Church in 2006 and I used to agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on gay marriage. I used to agree that it is wrong but I do not agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on it anymore. I think that there is nothing wrong with it.

What should the Church’s teaching be in respect of Marriage - so that you would agree with it? Would this then suggest a need to make some changes in other areas, concerning chastity? How would you wish to see these teachings changed?

In fact, I think it is necessary for it to be legalized in order to protect the rights of same sex couples. For example, without gay marriage, many same sex couples would not have **visitation rights **in hospitals. They also probably would not be able to file their taxes jointly and get **other benefits **that married couples can get.

Do you believe these things are at the heart of marriage? It would seem straightforward to define other legal frameworks that delivered the same benefits to same sex couples. And those frameworks need make no assumption whatsoever about the sexual behaviour of the couple. [NB: Marriage is a sexual union.]

I also think that by legalizing gay marriage it would help to reduce the bigotry that is out there against same sex couples and those who deal with same sex attraction. I think we can all agree that there is too much hatred out there for people who deal with it. I am not blaming Catholics for this hatred. I am saying that the hatred exists among the general population and I think that legalizing gay marriage would help to reduce that hatred because people would get used to the reality of gay marriage and as they are more exposed to it they would realize that same sex couples are not as bad as they thought they were originally. Its just that there are a lot of stereotypes out there and I think that legalization of same sex marriage could help to reduce that stereotypes and stigma by showing people the reality of same sex relationships and such.

The “ends” that you speak of above are good. But, are you prepared to recommend any and all means to achieve them? The words “the ends do not justify the means” appear in the Catechism. Do you accept that as a fundamental moral principle?

So anyway, I know that there are a lot of religious reasons for being opposed to same sex marriage but I live in the United States and laws cannot be based on religion here because of the separation of church and state. I am all for separation of church and state. I think it would be incredibly stupid to start creating laws based on religious teachings. So, if you will defend the teaching of the Catholic Church that same sex marriage is wrong and should be illegal then please try to rely on arguments that are not exclusively religious in nature because those don’t hold much sway with me.

It is difficult to hold two contradictory ideas in the mind simultaneously, even harder to believe them both. To endorse the redefining of marriage such that it encompasses same sex couples, you would need to hold a very different view of what marriage is than does the Church.

 

[Rau]

…If a couple is infertile it is not because men and women can not produce babies together. It is an exception. With homosexual couples they can never conceive naturally. Infertile couples can still marry because there are two purposes: for unity and procreation. They can still have the first one.

Acutally, the union of man+woman, even beset with infertility, is complete. They married with will and the capability to join together in a manner apt for generation of life. If infertility is a factor, there is no impediment to conjugal relations, such relations may merely be ineffective for generation.

 

[edwest2]

Hey everyone. I am a Catholic. I converted to the Catholic Church in 2006 and I used to agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on gay marriage. I used to agree that it is wrong but I do not agree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on it anymore. I think that there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, I think it is necessary for it to be legalized in order to protect the rights of same sex couples. For example, without gay marriage, many same sex couples would not have visitation rights in hospitals. They also probably would not be able to file their taxes jointly and get other benefits that married couples can get. I also think that by legalizing gay marriage it would help to reduce the bigotry that is out there against same sex couples and those who deal with same sex attraction. I think we can all agree that there is too much hatred out there for people who deal with it. I am not blaming Catholics for this hatred. I am saying that the hatred exists among the general population and I think that legalizing gay marriage would help to reduce that hatred because people would get used to the reality of gay marriage and as they are more exposed to it they would realize that same sex couples are not as bad as they thought they were originally. Its just that there are a lot of stereotypes out there and I think that legalization of same sex marriage could help to reduce that stereotypes and stigma by showing people the reality of same sex relationships and such.

So anyway, I know that there are a lot of religious reasons for being opposed to same sex marriage but I live in the United States and laws cannot be based on religion here because of the separation of church and state. I am all for separation of church and state. I think it would be incredibly stupid to start creating laws based on religious teachings. So, if you will defend the teaching of the Catholic Church that same sex marriage is wrong and should be illegal then please try to rely on arguments that are not exclusively religious in nature because those don’t hold much sway with me.

First of all, marriage as universally understood, involves a bond between a man and woman. They are the ones who bring the next generation into the world. Gay marriage does not do that.

Gay persons could have gotten all their benefits through other means. Having been a guardian for a relative with power of attorney, I could handle everything. His finances, making health care decisions on his behalf, and upon his death, obtain a document regarding the final disposition of his possessions. Once again, other means could have been used but were not.

Accepting gay marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage is not valid because two men or two women are simply not one man and one woman.

Finally, I worked at a major hospital for nearly 10 years. The people I worked with included lesbians, gays, a bisexual, and a transgender person. I never thought for one second about what they did on their own time. Gay marriage was not on the radar. In the Emergency Room, asking about their sexual orientation was not a question asked unless the patient had a disorder that was related to sexual behavior.

Painting with a broad brush is never the right thing to do. I was in a doctor’s waiting room watching a celebrity telling all viewers to “stop being homophobic.” He was certainly not talking to me. If I was in a mall and saw 100 people, I could tell who was black, white or Oriental but could not tell if anyone was gay. And when same-sex marriage was on the ballot in my state, my first thought was “How did this get on the ballot?” followed by “Why does anybody need my permission?” And that applies to everyone I know, gay or straight. NOBODY asks for my permission to live how they want.

This is, based on my review of history, a social engineering experiment. Little kids in school who do not have the mental or emotional capacity to fully understand it, are being given story books that portray gay marriage in a positive light. Leave the kids alone. No one has the right to introduce indoctrination, especially without the consent of the parent(s).

Ed

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I never said the Church is right about everything except this. Perhaps they are wrong about lots of things? Masturbation? Birth Control? **I do know a great majority of Catholics also see these as not wrong. **

Also, I do think God is love and is NOT against homosexuality. So we can agree to disagree perhaps? It’s a simple matter of respecting our ideas. You can absolutely believe in anything you wish, but don’t use that to try and say Gay people should not be able to get married. Problem solved.

How about the Dalai Lama, Buddhist leader and spokesperson saying gay sex is sexual misconduct, as it uses the “wrong hole” ? You probably need to convince him first before trying to convince the Church faithful that Catholic teaching is wrong on homosexual acts and gay “marriage.”
,

 

[georget]

I am not here to argue just for the sake of causing trouble or chaos, I am expressing my personal opinion. This is an opinion that many Catholics actually agree with me on.

“The truth is the truth even if no one believes it, and error is error even if everyone believes it.”
Archbishop Fulton Sheen

 

[edwest2]

I am an atheist but I am very skeptical about gay marriage.

One reason is that I see it as an attempt by gay people to pretend to be something they are not. In the future children will have to have it carefully explained to them that when two men claim to have children together it doesn’t mean at all the same thing as when a man and women have children.

Another thing is that this is something that 20 years ago nearly everyone would have thought was a ridiculous idea. Now you hear people say that everyone who is against it is a bigot. How did that happen?

I think when religious people give arguments for their positions they sometimes destroy their own relevance. If someone says he doesn’t believe in gay marriage because of the Bible, for example, they are just asking for someone to retort, “but you can’t impose your religion on other people, therefore we should have gay marriage, since we have separation of church and state.”

A strategy was developed based on a misconception. Denying gay couples marriage is discrimination. Really? Other legal remedies exist. It is obvious that the goal is that if gay sex is institutionalized as gay marriage then it is believed that everyone will just accept it. That is a narrow view that has become more militant in order to motivate the troops. In this case, the “enemy” had to be accused of bigotry, hatred, and religious interference in order to justify a social experiment. Even though those innocent of any wrong behavior against gay persons are automatically considered the enemy until they comply. And accept.

I think the OP has made up his mind. As Catholics, we just need to understand what marriage actually is and defend the truth.

The separation of Church and State idea is a myth. The Government cannot impose a State religion on the people but it tells us that we have the ability to freely exercise our religion. That would include matters involving laws and proposed changes in laws.

Best,
Ed

 

[Peter_Plato]

And for all the haters out there: If you don’t like gay marriage, or think it’s wrong, don’t marry a gay person. Thank you very much.

peace and love to all.

And for all you haters out there: if you don’t like murder, lying, theft or rape [or insert any other moral issue here], or think these are wrong, don’t kill, lie, steal or rape another person. Thank you very much.

Peace and love to all.

:doh2:

 

[bisco1]

looks like the o/p has to chose between the catholics and the buddhists.

 

[Ositokc]

And for all you haters out there: if you don’t like murder, lying, theft or rape [or insert any other moral issue here], or think these are wrong, don’t kill, lie, steal or rape another person. Thank you very much.

Peace and love to all.

:doh2:

How Christian and smart of you to compare Gay Marriage to murder, theft, stealing and rape!

Hmmm, which one of these is not like the other? The reason: Gay Marriage, contrary to what you may think, does not HARM anyone, in fact it’s the opposite. It brings love and happiness to the world. Ironic that many hardcore fundamentalists are so quick to deny.

 

[Ositokc]

How about the Dalai Lama, Buddhist leader and spokesperson saying gay sex is sexual misconduct, as it uses the “wrong hole” ? You probably need to convince him first before trying to convince the Church faithful that Catholic teaching is wrong on homosexual acts and gay “marriage.”
,

The Dalai Lama actually CHANGED his mind! Wow, there’s hope for the world. Maybe you will too some day.
____ from abcnews:

The Dalai Lama has joined the growing chorus of people who support gay marriage, the exiled Tibetan religious leader said during his latest visit to the United States.

“If two people — a couple — really feel that way is more practical, more sort of satisfaction, both sides fully agree, then OK,” he said during an online interview with talk show host Larry King.

This seems to be a change for the celibate Dalai Lama, who previously has made remarks more critical of homosexuality, including denouncing anal and oral sex.

 

[cena]

How Christian and smart of you to compare Gay Marriage to murder, theft, stealing and rape!

Hmmm, which one of these is not like the other? The reason: Gay Marriage, contrary to what you may think, does not HARM anyone, in fact it’s the opposite. It brings love and happiness to the world. Ironic that many hardcore fundamentalists are so quick to deny.

If someone commits adultery because they fell in love with someone else that was not their spouse isn’t that giving that person love and happiness? Is adultery okay then?

Drugs make people happy, does that make it okay? Just because someone is happy does not mean it is good. There are people that enjoy watching people being tortured, or killing people so happiness does not always equal good
Romantic love between homosexuals does not exist like love between homosexuals can.

 

[Michael97]

How Christian and smart of you to compare Gay Marriage to murder, theft, stealing and rape!

Your use of ad hominem indicates your inability to argue using reason. If you are interested in having a legitimate and charitable discussion you can drop the insults. If you continue to call names it will detract for your own intellectual value as it certainly seems that you are running out of intellectual things to say.

I request that you do not take this as a personal attack, it isn’t.