Question: Is gay marriage sinful?

[theCardinalbird]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Does this help?

 

[chris.richmond.belch]

Yes. Very! It still don’t quite address my question but it’s much better relevant than most of what I’ve read so far. Thank you!

 

[sevenswords]

Hi Your right of course I was in a rush and meant to say that Gay marriage is not valid and can not be made valid by the state saying it is.
Thank you

 

[TheLittleLady]

Sin and culpabilty are two different things.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

chris.richmond.belch:

Am I just misunderstanding or is the act of gay marriage a sin?

Oh yes. Gay Marriage is a mockery or a charade of one the sacraments. Its definitely a sacrilege.

Well, it is a mockery of something, but not of a sacrament. When two Hindus get married they are not performing a sacrament so their marriage would also be a mockery of a sacrament. Note: I am not supporting gay marriage either. I just think it should be attacked with a better argument, such as Natural Law and Scandal.

 

[bassmansteiny]

Question: Is gay marriage sinful?

Simple answer is yes.

Plain and simple, marriage is a sacrament with the fruit of it being children.

I think anyone who does not know the Catholic Church’s position on gay marriage is living under a rock. It has been in the news a lot since Pope Francis became our current Pope. I will concede that sometimes the media tries to spin what he says to mean the Church “may allow” for it, but even that would mean that it is currently not allowed.
Being a sacrament this is un changing and will not change. Married life between a man and a women is a vocation just like the priesthood is a vocation.

As Catholics we are called to love our gay brothers and sisters. They are called to live a celibate life if they can’t overcome the same sex attraction. Being gay or a better term same sex attraction in and of itself is not a sin, it is the act of it.

 

[Monica83]

Was Augustine culpable for the grave sins of his past?

 

[bassmansteiny]

Well it could be argued with all three
I understand you are not supporting gay marrige.
However, my understanding and what I’ve been taught, the Catholic Church does consider marriage a Sacrament regardless of what other faith or non faith communities may view it as. Therefore it is a Sacrament. Now you may be right in the fact that it is better to argue it from natural law with a non catholic. However the OP was asking if it was a sin from a Catholic perspective, at least that is my jest of what the OP was asking therefore the Sacrament argument is a valid argument to make.

 

[bassmansteiny]

We are all culpable right?

 

[Monica83]

I would think so. Otherwise anything could possibly not be a sin. If they were informed-like St.Augustine was by St.Monica that they are sinning, then ignoring that information doesn’t mean its less of a mortal sin.

 

[Vico]

Recently I have seen otherwise devote Catholics start to argue that gay marriage is in fact not sinful because those engaged in it, do not have the knowledge or aren’t in a place to truly understand, and so they aren’t culpable and therefore the act of getting married to someone of another sex, isn’t sinful. It was my limited understanding that while knowledge could remove or lesson culpability, that it didn’t change the fact that the act itself (and this could be anything it doesn’t have to be gay marriage) is a sin. Am I just misunderstanding or is the act of gay marriage a sin?

Thank you!

There are two categories of actual sin: material sin, an act that is wrong in itself but not known to be wrong, and formal sin and in which there is always culpability.

What is the purpose of homosexual marriage? Do they scandalize each other?

Caechism

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

[Thorolfr]

Hi Your right of course I was in a rush and meant to say that Gay marriage is not valid and can not be made valid by the state saying it is.
Thank you

A gay marriage performed in accordance with the laws of the state might not be considered valid by the Catholic Church, but it would be considered valid by some other churches and from a practical point of view, would enjoy all the legal rights and protections that all other marriages, including Catholic marriages, enjoy. I’m sure that most gay couples are more interested in the legal rights and protections than in whether it’s a valid marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

 

[Paul71]

Check out this video, it’s got a really good example:

and you say yourself you’ve seen other examples, so I’ll spare you some time.

I watched the video, and it was interesting. The presenter gives examples of polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands) and polygyny (one man with multiple wives) in one particular culture in Nepal. Polygyny has been practiced at various times and places throughout history, and probably polyandry has been practiced at various times and places too. The important point is that polygyny or polyandry follow the standard template of a male/female sexual relationship being the basis of marriage. It’s just that they allow one person to have multiple marriages at once – somewhat like our modern divorce culture, except that in our culture, the marriages must be sequential, not concurrent. That is not to say that any of these practices are correct, but they are all variations on the standard theme that marriage is based on a sexual relationship between a man and a woman.

Now as to the next bit; I was clearly debating the word “mockery” as being incorrect. So you seem to be arguing against a thing I didn’t say.

In that case, I’ll address that more directly. You had said this:

In terms of sex; homosexual sex has also been going on for as long as we can trace. It happens in nature, it happens all across cultures and times. I don’t think it can be a mockery when it’s likely as old as the thing it’s mocking.

Regarding your last sentence, why not? What does the antiquity of homosexual acts have to do with whether they are mocking something or not?

Let’s look at the nitty-gritty biological facts: Sexual intercourse (to be more specific, I am referring to coitus) involves a man and a woman engaging together in the type of act that can potentially lead to the conception of a new human life, so that their two separate and complementary reproductive systems work together according to their nature or design. In the case of homosexual acts, we have either two men who both have male reproductive systems, or two women who both have female reproductive systems. It is biologically impossible for these two people to come together in the type of act that can potentially lead to the conception of a new human life. Whatever act they may engage in to bring sexual pleasure to each other, that act in some way simulates sexual intercourse (coitus), but it is not the same act – biogically it can’t be.

That is the basis for my opinion that homosexual acts are a mockery of sexual intercourse. Again this is my opinion; it is the way that I interpret the biological facts. I’m not trying to convince you to agree with my opinion, just explaining the basis for it.

(And by the way, the same could be said not only for homosexual acts, but also for masturbation, sodomy between opposite-sex partners, and other acts that are non-reproductive by their very nature.)

 

[Paul71]

I wouldn’t presume to know what their understanding of marriage is. I am old enough to know that there are many different understandings of what marriage is. Sexual activity usually doesn’t fit into the (non-religous) equation of those who get married because most have sex before they marry.

I was answering a question about two divorced people getting married. I assumed that the questioner meant two divorced people of the opposite sex, since the question seemed to be asking about a different scenario than two people of the same sex attempting to marry. If that assumption is correct, then clearly the two divorced people are attempting to enter into a marriage that is based on complementary sexuality, not on homosexuality. That was the basis upon which I said, “at least they understand…”

I really think the world would be a better place if we all stayed out of eachothers bedrooms (unless we are invited in , of course).

Gay “marriage” means granting public recognition to a homosexual relationship. If people want homosexual relationships to be recognized and approved in a public way, then of course that is going to put more focus on what these relationships consist of or are based on.

 

[Thorolfr]

That is the basis for my opinion that homosexual acts are a mockery of sexual intercourse. Again this is my opinion; it is the way that I interpret the biological facts. I’m not trying to convince you to agree with my opinion, just explaining the basis for it.

I guess that gay people do a lot to mock straight people, mocking their sex and mocking their marriages.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

and you say yourself you’ve seen other examples, so I’ll spare you some time.

I watched the video, and it was interesting. The presenter gives examples of polyandry (one woman with multiple husbands) and polygyny (one man with multiple wives) in one particular culture in Nepal. Polygyny has been practiced at various times and places throughout history, and probably polyandry has been practiced at various times and places too. The important point is that polygyny or polyandry follow the standard template of a male/female sexual relationship being the basis of marriage. It’s just that they allow one person to have multiple marriages at once – somewhat like our modern divorce culture, except that in our culture, the marriages must be sequential, not concurrent. That is not to say that any of these practices are correct, but they are all variations on the standard theme that marriage is based on a sexual relationship between a man and a woman.

You had already said yourself that you’d seen examples of historical homosexual marriage, so as I mentioned I saw no reason to go over it again. We can if you like but I do feel its been shown that marriage comes on many forms.

Alex337:

Now as to the next bit; I was clearly debating the word “mockery” as being incorrect. So you seem to be arguing against a thing I didn’t say.

In that case, I’ll address that more directly. You had said this:

In terms of sex; homosexual sex has also been going on for as long as we can trace. It happens in nature, it happens all across cultures and times. I don’t think it can be a mockery when it’s likely as old as the thing it’s mocking.

Regarding your last sentence, why not? What does the antiquity of homosexual acts have to do with whether they are mocking something or not?

If a thing had existed as long as something else then it can’t have been mocking the other. To mock something you need to come after it. It’s impossible to mock an idea that hasn’t been had.

 

[Alex337]

Let’s look at the nitty-gritty biological facts: Sexual intercourse (to be more specific, I am referring to coitus) involves a man and a woman engaging together in the type of act that can potentially lead to the conception of a new human life, so that their two separate and complementary reproductive systems work together according to their nature or design. In the case of homosexual acts, we have either two men who both have male reproductive systems, or two women who both have female reproductive systems. It is biologically impossible for these two people to come together in the type of act that can potentially lead to the conception of a new human life. Whatever act they may engage in to bring sexual pleasure to each other, that act in some way simulates sexual intercourse (coitus), but it is not the same act – biogically it can’t be.

That is the basis for my opinion that homosexual acts are a mockery of sexual intercourse. Again this is my opinion; it is the way that I interpret the biological facts. I’m not trying to convince you to agree with my opinion, just explaining the basis for it.

(And by the way, the same could be said not only for homosexual acts, but also for masturbation, sodomy between opposite-sex partners, and other acts that are non-reproductive by their very nature.)

That works on the faulty assumption that all sex has procreation as it’s only goal. Sex is many and varied and not all sex cares about reproduction.

I believe I listed other reasons people may have sex already. And of course people aren’t alone on this with many animals also having sex that will not result in procreation.

Procreative sex is one kind of sex. It’s not the only. It’s very self centred to assume all people throughout time who have had non procreative sex or masturbated were doing so as a form of mockery.

 

[Augustinian]

Gay “marriage” means granting public recognition to a homosexual relationship. If people want homosexual relationships to be recognized and approved in a public way, then of course that is going to put more focus on what these relationships consist of or are based on.

That’s exactly the difference here. When I was a young man, there were any number of homosexuals, but they kept their activities on the QT. Not the case in 2018

 

[Alex337]

It’s good fewer people fear they’ll lose their job, family, friends or even their lives. having to hide their relationships must have been hard.

 

[Augustinian]

No one really “hid” anything, they just didn’t discuss their gay sex lives in polite company.

Most people, especially children, were hardly aware of it- leading to the production of educational films like “Boys Beware” by Sid Davis to teach kids what they need to know about it.