Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

People these days marry for love which is an absurd and terrible idea, it is like building on quicksand.

Wow!
I always thought “Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage”

 

[Rau]

People these days marry for love which is an absurd and terrible idea, it is like building on quicksand.

Perhaps you are saying Love is an insufficient reason to marry? I should think that to proceed absent Love might also be unwise.

 

[BrassAnkles]

Perhaps you are saying Love is an insufficient reason to marry? I should think that to proceed absent Love might also be unwise.

It would seem Joi’s version of perfect love is same sex celibate “love” with homosexual undertones as heterosexual love in a marriage is apparently “inferior”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

People these days marry for love which is an absurd and terrible idea, it is like building on quicksand.

That depend upon which definition of love you are using.

Real love is unconditional concern for the welfare of others as other. That kind of love would be a good reason to marry.

If love means some kind of emotional state which can come and go, then that would be a terrible idea.

 

[Rin]

Perhaps you are saying Love is an insufficient reason to marry? I should think that to proceed absent Love might also be unwise.

I would say it depends on the definition of love; sadly, the lacking vocabulary in modern Germanic languages doesn’t exactly help communication on the subject.

I think infatuation-love is not necessary to enter a good marriage, and if it is the sole basis (as it too often is), the marriage is doomed to collapse. The same would go (to an even higher extent) for sexual attraction-love.

Caretaking-love, on the other hand, is, I would say, essential. Taking care of the other person until death is one of the promises made through entering a marriage. Infatuation-love is not. That said, it is a promise, not a prerequisite. It is fully possible to commit to caretaking-love even if it is not present at the time of the commitment.

But still, in this context, the point remains that neither of these are sufficient for marriage in Catholic theology. The movement towards gay unions being termed marriage was preceded by the reduction of marriage to some definition of (preferably committed) love - which one does not really matter. Gay couples are fully capable of caretaking-love as well as infatuation-love. Anything to the contrary is nonsense, as I’m sure you agree. In a society where marriage is no longer about (natural) reproduction, there is no rational reason to limit it to heterosexual couples.

In the context of Holy Matrimony, however, there is little to discuss; as a Sacrament it is inseparable from (again, natural) reproduction. Civil marriage was radically different from Holy Matrimony to begin with, and when it actually produces valid marriages, it should be seen as a clock which is right twice a day. Civil gay marriage changes little, if anything at all.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Are there any resources that are reliable about the Council of Trent?

This one is a good source for all councils and encyclicals.

papalencyclicals.net/all.htm

To be clear, the quote you used from Trent was not a bad translation, per se, it just wasn’t as clear as it could have been. The use of “not” with the comparison term “better” gives an impression that Church teaching is that celibate life is better than married life, which isn’t what the Church teaches. Both have their place depending upon the individual and their vocation. The EWTN version just made that clearer.

The site you linked to is questionable, however.

 

[Rau]

It would seem Joi’s version of perfect love is same sex celibate “love” with homosexual undertones as heterosexual love in a marriage is apparently “inferior”.

Mischievous misrepresentation and nonsense Brass.

 

[cena]

This one is a good source for all councils and encyclicals.

papalencyclicals.net/all.htm

To be clear, the quote you used from Trent was not a bad translation, per se, it just wasn’t as clear as it could have been. The use of “not” with the comparison term “better” gives an impression that Church teaching is that celibate life is better than married life, which isn’t what the Church teaches. Both have their place depending upon the individual and their vocation. The EWTN version just made that clearer.

The site you linked to is questionable, however.

Isn’t celibacy(religious life) a higher calling than married life(not that marriage is bad).

It’s better to not marry than to marry (which does not mean that marriage is bad, marriage is good)

 

[Rau]

In a society where marriage is no longer about (natural) reproduction, there is no rational reason to limit it to heterosexual couples.

Our job is to give witness to the ideal of marriage, not to acquiesce to the current state of affairs.

 

[cena]

I would say it depends on the definition of love; sadly, the lacking vocabulary in modern Germanic languages doesn’t exactly help communication on the subject.

I think infatuation-love is not necessary to enter a good marriage, and if it is the sole basis (as it too often is), the marriage is doomed to collapse. The same would go (to an even higher extent) for sexual attraction-love.

Caretaking-love, on the other hand, is, I would say, essential. Taking care of the other person until death is one of the promises made through entering a marriage. Infatuation-love is not. That said, it is a promise, not a prerequisite. It is fully possible to commit to caretaking-love even if it is not present at the time of the commitment.

But still, in this context, the point remains that neither of these are sufficient for marriage in Catholic theology. The movement towards gay unions being termed marriage was preceded by the reduction of marriage to some definition of (preferably committed) love - which one does not really matter. Gay couples are fully capable of caretaking-love as well as infatuation-love. Anything to the contrary is nonsense, as I’m sure you agree. In a society where marriage is no longer about (natural) reproduction, there is no rational reason to limit it to heterosexual couples.

In the context of Holy Matrimony, however, there is little to discuss; as a Sacrament it is inseparable from (again, natural) reproduction. Civil marriage was radically different from Holy Matrimony to begin with, and when it actually produces valid marriages, it should be seen as a clock which is right twice a day. Civil gay marriage changes little, if anything at all.

What is the purpose of marriage then?

Why do these individuals need to be married and not live together with no legal designation or in civil unions (I am Against both of these too, but I am asking why we need to change MARRIAGE)

 

[Rin]

Our job is to give witness to the ideal of marriage, not to acquiesce to the current state of affairs.

True, but to restore the ideal of marriage, we would have to do away with civil marriage as such. The rather single-minded opposition towards same-sex marriage I see among many Catholics (not you), detracts from the fact that the Church disapproves of civil marriage to begin with. It actually makes it look like the Church is fervently in favor of civil marriage. Lastly, it often detracts from the fact that marriage is in its current state primarily because of developments caused by heterosexuals, over the course of centuries. Gay people end up as scapegoats for something caused by straight people.

This is why I advocate a removal of the term and concept of marriage from secular law, and an introduction of civil unions with no presumption of sexual activity in its place. It would benefit everyone; gay couples would get the rights they need, religions (and world view organizations who do ceremonies) would be completely free to define marriage as they please, and not least, people who are not eligible for civil marriage today, but still share their lives, celibate siblings being an example (still common some places, I grew up not far from one such “couple”), would also benefit.

The only people who do not benefit from such a solution, are the ones who demand to be seen and validated by the state as right. This only makes me like it even more .

 

[Rin]

What is the purpose of marriage then?

Why do these individuals need to be married and not live together with no legal designation or in civil unions (I am Against both of these too, but I am asking why we need to change MARRIAGE)

Taxes, property, custody of children, automatic (and universally accepted) power of attourney, the list is very long. Also, for many, it is important to have their commitment recognized by society.

But when you ask why we need to change capital-letter marriage, what many don’t get, is that different people speak of different things when they speak of marriage. I have explained more about this above, including what I think is the best solution.

 

[bisco1]

God defined marriage for catholics. nothing else matters. the road to destruction is wide, and many follow it. take the narrow way that leads to life…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Taxes, property, custody of children, automatic (and universally accepted) power of attourney, the list is very long. Also, for many, it is important to have their commitment recognized by society.

But when you ask why we need to change capital-letter marriage, what many don’t get, is that different people speak of different things when they speak of marriage. I have explained more about this above, including what I think is the best solution.

There is no need to change the definition of marriage.

If gay unions merit those rights and benefits they should be argued on their own merit not by redefining marriage.

I made a case in this post and you haven’t replied to it. Perhaps you didn’t read it, but you need to,

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12588146&postcount=63

 

[Peter_Plato]

Isn’t celibacy(religious life) a higher calling than married life(not that marriage is bad).

It’s better to not marry than to marry (which does not mean that marriage is bad, marriage is good)

That was Paul’s advice to the early Church given the political and social situation at the time - the persecutions, the immediate Apostolic mission and the immanent destruction of Jerusalem.

For the Church’s broader view, refer to the Cathechism or the Compendium on the Social Doctrine of the Church.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

 

[cena]

That was Paul’s advice to the early Church given the political and social situation at the time - the persecutions, the immediate Apostolic mission and the immanent destruction of Jerusalem.

For the Church’s broader view, refer to the Cathechism or the Compendium on the Social Doctrine of the Church.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

I read a moral theology book that was talking about vows. Anyway they said that vows have not just be good but better than their opposite and they used marriage as an example. One could not be bound to get married because it is not better than its opposite.

 

[edwest2]

Why not???

If not for the purpose of procreation…why marry at all?

Maybe the time has come for the “Big Backlash”.

Not long ago a couple living together had to bear the stigma “Shacking Up”. They lost the respect of friends and family members shunned them. Did shaking up exist then? Yes, but not nearly at the rate it occurs today. Today it is acceptable by society and some religious denominations. SO…why marry?

Maybe parents and families should begin taking a dim view of shacking up and develop a “non-acceptance” attitude.

“Acceptance” has caused us a lot of trouble. Along with the concepts of: sexual orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-culturalism, inclusiveness, discrimination, homophobia and (of course) tolerance, all as defined by “gay sophists”. We as Catholics and as a society failed to examine the underlying premises of their arguments. Now homosexuals are able to cast themselves as victims and their opponents as oppressors.

The bottom line is that now homosexuality is promoted in schools, films and the media and our traditional concept of marriage has been destroyed. :sad_yes:

Let’s not go from one extreme to another.

remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2012-1130-fulton-sheen-Plea-For-Intolerance.htm

Other things have happened. One can know right from wrong and good from bad. That includes sexual behavior and what it means. Because most of our modern ills revolve around a misuse of human sexuality.

amazon.com/Extreme-Makeover-Transformed-Conformed-Culture/dp/1586175610

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Wow!
I always thought “Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage”

That’s right.

Ed

 

[Peter_Plato]

Taxes, property, custody of children, automatic (and universally accepted) power of attourney, the list is very long. Also, for many, it is important to have their commitment recognized by society.

But when you ask why we need to change capital-letter marriage, what many don’t get, is that different people speak of different things when they speak of marriage. I have explained more about this above, including what I think is the best solution.

What people speak of is, in some sense, irrelevant if that marriage is can be well-defined and well-understood.

I suggest you watch all three parts of this discussion.

winteryknight.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/what-is-marriage-a-lecture-with-sherif-girgis-ryan-t-anderson-and-robert-p-george/

 

[Peter_Plato]

I read a moral theology book that was talking about vows. Anyway they said that vows have not just be good but better than their opposite and they used marriage as an example. One could not be bound to get married because it is not better than its opposite.

I am sorry, but I don’t understand the point you are making above.