Question about Gay Marriage

[JEANNIEMAC]

Actually, there is a discrepance between the size of the erect penis and that of the vagina.
So using this “it does not fit argument” to e.g. the case of anal sex would not be such a convincing argument.
Amongst heterosexuals, it rarely fits perfectly. It is made to fit: as amongst homosexual males. This would not work for the females though…

You are still circling. What reason or purpose is there for anal sex? It causes gay bowel syndrom, aids, etc. In fact, all STDs are caused by other than monogamous marriages. Why are there commandments against fornication and aultery? We are the children of The Holy Immortal One. We should behave with the dignity befitting us.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Hi all,
I’m from CA, where we barely got Proposition 8 (restoring the true definition of marriage) passed

Here’s where I’m in a bind: many of my friends, who are Catholic (or at least refer to themselves as such) voted against Prop 8 and are very unhappy with the results. For example, one of my friends writes as her status on Facebook, “[name of person] knows Jesus would never deny a human right & people that use the Bible to say yes on Prop 8 show their ignorance and uncompassionate heart for human rights.”

So, I’m working on ways to present what the Church teaches about marriage and homosexuality (and gay “marriage”). The primary argument against Prop 8 frames marriage as an equality and civil rights issue.

Here’s my question though: is marriage definable as a “human right”? I’m struggling to come up with a definite answer from a Catholic perspective. Also, if anyone has any general ideas for ways to explain TRUE Catholic teaching in this regard, I’d appreciate it.

No, marriage between gays is not a human right nor is it a civil right. This fact can be demonstrated from a simple logical and even secular perspective.

It is true, those for marriage between gays try to frame it falsley as a civil right, but it isn’t. Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. An illustration of what is meant: when you go to get your drivers license, you are told that driving is not a right, but a privilege. And if you meet certain conditions, you can be granted the privilege of driving by means of a driver’s license.

The same is true for marriage–if you meet certain conditions, you can be granted the privilege of marriage by means of a marriage license. The very fact that a marriage license is needed is by itself demonstration that marriage is not a right. If it were a right, you could just go get married, with no license, because you have the right.

This is true for everybody, because in the state, and the Church as well, not everybody is granted the privilege of marriage. For instance, you cannot marry someone that is already married. You cannot marry someone that you are too closely related to. You cannot marry someone that is the wrong age. You can probably think of other impediments to marriage, both for the Church and for the state.

But why not? If I love someone already married, shouldn’t I have the right to marry her? She can have two husbands. Heck, some Eskimos did. Or marry my mother? Again, why not, if marriage is a civil right? The pro-gay marriage advocates say that if two people love one another, they should be able to get married. But in that case, why just two, why not three, or four? If they all love one another? The logic is the same.

And the charge that gays are discriminated against is false, because gays are not prohibited from marrying. Being gay is not an impediment to getting a marriage license; I have known gays who were married and had children.

Hence, all the arguments about rights and so on are specious and red herrings.

 

[Shlomey]

You are still circling. What reason or purpose is there for anal sex? It causes gay bowel syndrom, aids, etc. In fact, all STDs are caused by other than monogamous marriages. Why are there commandments against fornication and aultery? We are the children of The Holy Immortal One. We should behave with the dignity befitting us.

Pleasure shared by two people loving each other.

Why can we not simply admit that the #1 reason to oppose this all is because of what the Church teaches?

Still, I stand by my position that it is not the Church’s prerogative to control other people’s lives through the state-apparatus against their free will.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Still, I stand by my position that it is not the Church’s prerogative to control other people’s lives through the state-apparatus against their free will.

Maybe it isn’t the Church’s prerogative. But every other interest group wants to do just that–use the state apparatus–lethal force-- to impose their values upon other people.

 

[JEANNIEMAC]

Pleasure shared by two people loving each other.

Why can we not simply admit that the #1 reason to oppose this all is because of what the Church teaches?

Still, I stand by my position that it is not the Church’s prerogative to control other people’s lives through the state-apparatus against their free will.

“Our Creator gives us free will. With that gift comes the burden of choice.” If someone chooses to do their own will as opposed to God’s will, they are also free to take the consequences.
. “He will abandon them to their debauchery.”

 

[Bennie_P]

Pleasure shared by two people loving each other.

Why can we not simply admit that the #1 reason to oppose this all is because of what the Church teaches?

Still, I stand by my position that it is not the Church’s prerogative to control other people’s lives through the state-apparatus against their free will.

For that would admit to a lie, for the # 1 reason is God opposes it #2 Natural Law is in opposition to it # 3 it is part of the culture death as it is focused toward selfishness, self-pleasing, in despite of who it hurts otherwise (family, friends, God, etc.) and as opposed to be giving and affirming of life, many times it leads to disease and death.

The Church doesn’t control anyones life that choices to live outside of it’s teachings, nor does God. All are given a free will to do what is right or wrong, even if it causes death or loss of soul.
… So why do you think selfishness of two idolizing each other doing something that contradicts all of the above should have more of a right to force the rest of the world to accept the lie?

 

[LittleDeb]

No, marriage between gays is not a human right nor is it a civil right. This fact can be demonstrated from a simple logical and even secular perspective.

It is true, those for marriage between gays try to frame it falsley as a civil right, but it isn’t. Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. An illustration of what is meant: when you go to get your drivers license, you are told that driving is not a right, but a privilege. And if you meet certain conditions, you can be granted the privilege of driving by means of a driver’s license.

The same is true for marriage–if you meet certain conditions, you can be granted the privilege of marriage by means of a marriage license. The very fact that a marriage license is needed is by itself demonstration that marriage is not a right. If it were a right, you could just go get married, with no license, because you have the right.

This is true for everybody, because in the state, and the Church as well, not everybody is granted the privilege of marriage. For instance, you cannot marry someone that is already married. You cannot marry someone that you are too closely related to. You cannot marry someone that is the wrong age. You can probably think of other impediments to marriage, both for the Church and for the state.

But why not? If I love someone already married, shouldn’t I have the right to marry her? She can have two husbands. Heck, some Eskimos did. Or marry my mother? Again, why not, if marriage is a civil right? The pro-gay marriage advocates say that if two people love one another, they should be able to get married. But in that case, why just two, why not three, or four? If they all love one another? The logic is the same.

And the charge that gays are discriminated against is false, because gays are not prohibited from marrying. Being gay is not an impediment to getting a marriage license; I have known gays who were married and had children.

Hence, all the arguments about rights and so on are specious and red herrings.

Excellent post!!

This has been my argument that marriage is not a right. And further this post shows that granting an exception of civil unions for same sex has no logical end. Why two people? There is logic to one man and one woman.

Even if a single act is subjectively infertile, the act itself is still objectively procreative. The act that an infertile couple participates in is the same act as those who can reproduce. The acts are interchangeable. The results are just different. To those who base their same-sex logic as a “right of marriage” are you saying that the acts are interchangeable? If so then why are you straight? In other words, if what you would do with someone of the opposite sex is the same as what your homosexual friend does, then what is the difference between being gay and straight?

I will give you folks a hint: The gay agenda says there isn’t a difference. Many radical activists have said that “since everyone is a little gay” that everyone should explore the gay lifestyle. Note to those who doubt this…do the research yourself like I did. I will NOT post the links here. Some of them are very hard to stomach.

 

[CAROLOFTHEBELLS]

I didn’t read the entire thread, sorry.

Here’s part of what I think about the issue of Prop 8 and the protests. This is simplistic, but here goes. Is it not a human right to eat? Is it not a human right to have shelter? Yet, there are people in the very cities where these protests are taking place who can’t afford food and are hungry or homeless. Are these people marching in the street to help further the cause of the poor, hunger, or homeless? No. It seems to me, therefore, that to them human rights depend on what effects them personally.

As for whether Jesus would want homosexuals to get married, that’s ridiculous. A very simple answer to that argument is that Jesus was a Jew and Jewish Law would forbide that.

When Jesus went into the Temple and angerly over-turned the tables of the money changers, was he trampling on their human rights? Couldn’t you argue that he was “mean” and not fair to those people who were just trying to make a living? Was it their human right to be there doing what they wanted because all people have a right to earn a living?

Not to be unfeeling, but people take human rights a bit too far nowadays anyway.

I also don’t trust any group of people who hold protests in front of churches. It gives me the creeps and makes to worry about the future of the right to religion in this state/country.

Just my opinion, but if someone I knew got on Facebook and said what Jesus wanted and didn’t back it up with good, solid biblical evidence, not only would I not respond to it, I would stop being their friend.

 

[una_fides]

I don’t know if this point has been raised yet, but if two men have the “right” to marry eachother or conversely two women, then who’s to say that three people cannot be married? Or why can’t a man marry his pet? If the basis of marriage is merely love and pursuit of happiness, then all these pass the same test. The problem is who defines what constitutes marriage. From the earliest of times, marriage has always been understood as an institution in which are the best conditions for having and raising children. That was the purpose. Today, with rampant contraception, sterilization, the blurring of gender lines, and the overabundance of divorces, society’s views towards marriage have become particularly skewed. A valid marriage is one which is geared towards raising children. The complementarity of the sexes and the rearing of children are what marriage is all about.

 

[una_fides]

I don’t know if this point has been raised yet, but if two men have the “right” to marry each other or conversely two women, then who’s to say that three people cannot be married? Or why can’t a man marry his pet? If the basis of marriage is merely love and pursuit of happiness, then all these pass the same test. The problem is who defines what constitutes marriage. From the earliest of times, marriage has always been understood as an institution in which are the best conditions for having and raising children. That was the purpose. Today, with rampant contraception, sterilization, the blurring of gender lines, and the overabundance of divorces, society’s views towards marriage have become particularly skewed. A valid marriage is one which is geared towards raising children. The complementarity of the sexes and the rearing of children are what marriage is all about.

 

[kristo]

To Ruthie:

You are a homophobe. Oh, and a bigot.

"Your every act should be done with love." -1 Cor 16:14

Oh, and a hypocrite… Keep up the good work. You’re a model Catholic.

 

[Annn]

You may be correct about that…I’m 54…those gay friends and acquaintences are my age and older…my lesbian friends were “married after the manner of Friends” in a Meeting back east many decades ago…they never felt the need to have the government “ok” the fact that they were “married”…they’ve been together longer than many of my other acquaintences.

Younger gay people…and I guess this is one of my “aversions” of the word “queer”…it had very dark connotations when I was growing up…most of the older gay men and women I know do not like it either…but I admire those young people who seek to “reclaim” the word as a badge of honor…I’m sure our experiences are “generational”.

To be honest, I use the word “gay” for myself, as I am only attracted to members of my own gender, but use the word “queer” for the community, so as not to leave anyone out (gay/lesbian/bisexual/trans/intersex/etc). If I could have chosen a new word, I would have, but it was already in wide usage “in the community” when I came of age.

 

[JEANNIEMAC]

“Homophobe” is a manufactured word made up by homosexuals to describe someone who does not agree with them.
Homo=man Phobe-phobia=fear of Fear of man.
I guess homosexuals want the word to mean “hatred of homos”.
In all these postings, homosexuals are desparate to gain acceptance for their dysfunctional lifestyle. They go around in circles, searching for any nuance of meaning they can twist around to justify their actions. Homosexual activities are sinful. That is a fact. If they don’t want to accept that fact, let them take the consequences.
I know they will not accept this statement I’ve made, and now I really don’t care, as it has become boring to read their circular arguments. God bless us all.

 

[PRmerger]

Even if a single act is subjectively infertile, the act itself is still objectively procreative.

Can you please explain the distiction between “subjectively infertile” and “objectively procreative”?

I assume an example would be the marital act between a woman who’s had a hysterectomy and her husband. How is this “objectively procreative”? There is simply no way that she will be able to procreate!

 

[CAROLOFTHEBELLS]

Just a minute ago on TV I saw a short tape of Elton John, standing with his partner, saying that they have a Civil Union and are very happy with it. He said he believes marriage between gays just complicates things and he can understand why people would believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That was interesting. I’ll have to be on the look out for a replay of that, since it was on so quickly than I may have misunderstood.

 

[CAROLOFTHEBELLS]

I don’t know if this point has been raised yet, but if two men have the “right” to marry eachother or conversely two women, then who’s to say that three people cannot be married? Or why can’t a man marry his pet? If the basis of marriage is merely love and pursuit of happiness, then all these pass the same test. The problem is who defines what constitutes marriage. From the earliest of times, marriage has always been understood as an institution in which are the best conditions for having and raising children. That was the purpose. Today, with rampant contraception, sterilization, the blurring of gender lines, and the overabundance of divorces, society’s views towards marriage have become particularly skewed. A valid marriage is one which is geared towards raising children. The complementarity of the sexes and the rearing of children are what marriage is all about.

I’m just quoting this because it is similar to other posts and I want to ask a question about this marriage is geared towards the raising of children.

I am a woman who was never asked to marry, although I have always wanted marriage and until a few years ago wanted children. I am now an attractive, straight, 50ish, woman who still dreams of marriage with the right man whom I may fall in love with. I can no longer have children. I missed the boat. I don’t care to adopt or to take on the rearing of someone else’s children. I feel I am past that stage now. I just want a marriage partner.

I’m not concerned with whether I have a right to marry. But I’m having a bit of a problem with this concentration on marriage being for the raising of children. I know someone already addressed the case of an infertile couple. But, I wondering why you all are not considering that some people (perhaps a minority) have had to put off marriage. Therefore, marriage for some is not at all geared towards the raising of children. I understand where you all are coming from, but you will forgive me if you seem to be saying that the man and the woman are good only for baby making and rearing. Wasn’t Eve created to be a helpmate for Adam because it is not good for man to be alone?

Also, I’m not sure this line of thinking regarding marriage is a pure and simple as it seems. For instance, marriage between royals in the past was not only to create an heir to the throne, but to unite countries in peaceful alliances. I just think it’s a little more complicated than rearing children.

 

[una_fides]

In defense of Ruthie and everyone else who disagrees with the homosexual agenda:

True love is not the embracing of offensive and unnatural lifestyles. It is the sacrifice of doing what is in the other person’s best interests. Sharing God’s truth with others certainly constitutes true love, and it can only be expected that people will oppose those who communicate his truth just as they killed the prophets and martyr saints, and just as they killed Christ himself for doing the same.

To be clear, anyone who sincerely fears almighty God must reject what we know from his divine revelation to be an abomination to him (Lev 18:22; 20:13 ; Rom 1:26-32; 1 Cor 6:9-10). Homosexuality is not and was not any more a part of God’s perfect creation than was original sin and the fall of man. It is the result of man’s selfishness and rejection of God and his law. Whether homosexuality is inherited or chosen, it is the result of original sin and those who engage in homosexual activity are called to repent and embrace the same walk of holiness just as heterosexuals are who engage in sexual activity or sexual desires apart from marriage.

Anyone who claims that modern science has somehow now changed what was previously known by divine revelation concerning homosexuality is a modernist and consequently a heretic and must amend this view to be reincorporated back into the body of Christ. I’d much rather be called a bigot and a homophobe for the sake of Christ than to oppose God and his perfect plan for us and for our salvation. God loves everyone and desires them to come to him and embrace him and his perfect plan for them and their lives.

– “we speak, not as pleasing men but God, who proves our hearts” (1 Thes 2:4).

 

[LittleDeb]

Can you please explain the distiction between “subjectively infertile” and “objectively procreative”?

I assume an example would be the marital act between a woman who’s had a hysterectomy and her husband. How is this “objectively procreative”? There is simply no way that she will be able to procreate!

Sure, not a problem!

A woman with a hysterectomy most certainly can be procreative. Procreative means: ‘ordered towards life,’ or ‘ordered towards a beginning.’ What she lacks is a subjective ability to conceive. The act itself, is objectively ordered towards life. When everything is working correctly they would subjectively conceive a new life. ‘Subjectively’ basically means: if everything is timed right and functioning correctly. In other words it is based on a “subjective set of circumstances.” Objectively speaking, the couple has done nothing to render the act different than ordered towards life.

As I said before, the act they are participating in is the act that makes babies. To make an act objectively not procreative something must be intentionally changed. A contraceptive act makes the act objectively sterile. It is a different act. A contraceptive act is not merely an infertile act. That is how it comes up in the context of a same-sex act. The same-sex act is objectively non procreative. The participants might be, ironically, subjectively fertile.

That is why the Church teaches that the act must always, each and every time, be primarily procreative and secondarily unitive. If it is not both, it is objectively a different act. It is not a marital act.

Best example: a woman who medically lacks a uterus is participating in an act that is objectively different than a woman with a tubal ligation. The marriage stats back that up. The procreative woman without a uterus is less likely to divorce than the contracepting woman, regardless of their religious denominations.

Same-sex couples seek things like IVF, surrogates, and insemination. Isn’t it true that these acts are objectively different acts than the marital act? So a procreative act that lacks unity is not the marriage act, in the same way that a unitive act that lacks procreation is not the marriage act.

To be procreative and unitive is an objective act. To be fertile and conceive is entirely subjective.

Clear as mud?

 

[James_Kevany]

Hello Third Degree, First, most questions you have about our Catholic faith are answered in “The Catechism of the Catholic Church”. Do you have one? Your friend says " jesus would not deny someone a human right". 5 year olds are human but cannot marry. Marriage can be for those who are “not under constraint & not impeded by any natural or ecclesiastical law”.So we have two impediments to Gay marriage. Your friend states people who use the Bible are ignorant & not compassionate. How non-Catholic. Catholics wrote the Bible and ST.paul in 2TIM 3:16 staes"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof,for correction,and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." So your friend must study the Catechism & the Bible to understand Catholicism, decide if they want to be Catholic and if not the good news is many Episcopal Churches believe as your friend does and they are “once saved always saved” Basically it’s Easy Church. If you want to contact me for further discussions on this subject about the sexual teachings of the Church and you will understand fully why the Church can not sanction Gay marriage. Too much to go into here. Thank’s , Jim Kevany, jkindust@verizon.net, I am a member of The Bishops Commission on Ministry to Families of Gay & Lesbian Catholics, San Bernadino Diocess

 

[LittleDeb]

I am a woman who was never asked to marry, although I have always wanted marriage and until a few years ago wanted children. I am now an attractive, straight, 50ish, woman who still dreams of marriage with the right man whom I may fall in love with. I can no longer have children. I missed the boat. I don’t care to adopt or to take on the rearing of someone else’s children. I feel I am past that stage now. I just want a marriage partner.

I’m not concerned with whether I have a right to marry. But I’m having a bit of a problem with this concentration on marriage being for the raising of children.

Also, I’m not sure this line of thinking regarding marriage is a pure and simple as it seems. For instance, marriage between royals in the past was not only to create an heir to the throne, but to unite countries in peaceful alliances. I just think it’s a little more complicated than rearing children.

I think you are experiencing the same struggles as many other people with a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. Theology of the Body would be very helpful, but it can be a bear to take on.

As I said in my previous post, marriage is about objective criteria. The definition of marriage is “two become one.” That is an objective definition on many levels. It takes an act in which two beings were separate and yet have become one. The body parts are doing what they are designed to do, giving and receiving. The penis gives, the vagina receives. That’s what they were designed to do.

To create a new life takes one ovum on sperm…two become one. It is never one egg and two sperms or two eggs and one sperm, or one egg and one egg. It is always, always, always, one egg and one sperm. Even in multiple births there is never a unity of anything other than one egg and one sperm.

And finally on the spiritual level two become one as the Church (the Bride) is one with Jesus, (the Groom.) We hear it all the time, “The body of Christ that is the Church.” “…Must love his wife as Christ so loves the Church.”

Our human marriage is a reflection of Christ’s marriage. Ours is the analogy. Human marriage that *can *not produce life is very different than a human marriage that will not produce life. Human marriage is designed to be procreative. It must have all the criteria to be an actual marriage.

It isn’t only about actually making babies every time. It is much more about the “two become one” than anything else. It just so happens that babies are the absolute perfect expression of what that phrase means. It is not a coincidence.

Your concerns are explained at the very foundation of Theology of the Body.