Question: Is gay marriage sinful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chris.richmond.belch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
theCardinalbird said:
By picking up this cross of same sex attraction I am finding peace and happiness in ways that I can’t put to paper yet (or text in this case), and by dying to myself, by crucifying my desires and fully submitting myself to
Click to expand...
At this time in history I’m convinced their is a crown in heaven for that. Persevere.
 
Homosexual acts are technically sinful. For that reason many faiths can not extend sacraments/marriage ceremonies to same sex couples. That is the reason that faiths are against the marriage. They can’t be a part of joining together two people in such a way. The sin of same sex marriage isn’t in the ceremony itself. Catholics may feel that can not profit off such a ceremony, that those present participate in the union. Marriage is two people agreeing to be exclusive until natural death in the sexual act. There is nothing sinful about sharing ownership of property, naming someone to be your power of attorney…

As a heterosexual I have no pride in avoiding this particular sin. I do not have any idea how I would live life being told I had to be chaste. So I’m glad it’s not something I have to worry about.
 
PetraG said:
40.png
Alex337:
Sorry I’m not obsessed with sex and neither is my partner? If you find sex to be the defining aspect of marriage I do wonder what would happen if your partner were rendered incapable of sex. Surely you would still consider your marriage valid? Maybe not?
Click to expand...
When a marriage has been consumated between a man and a woman, the two become one flesh. Heterosexual consort is meant to set up a relationship for life, a relationship that is open to procreation. Society has an interest in defending social relationships that guard a child’s interest in being raised in the same home with both of his or her parents and keeping parents together as grandparents. That is why fornication and adultery are considered a serious offenses.
Click to expand...
From all I’ve seen this doesn’t seem to be the case. I’ve asked multiple people whether a woman without a uterus can be married, there is no chance for procreation there, and yes they can. Conversely if a man is unable to ejaculate they can’t marry. It seems less about procreation and more about sex.
PetraG said:
By your measure of marriage, if sex has nothing to do with it, how could you cheat on your spouse physically? You’re saying that if your spouse has sex with someone else, that is not a violation of the marriage vows? Sex is no big deal, so who cares? Yeah. Right. You all believe that?
Click to expand...
Simple; my spouse believes sex can be important bonding factor and is something one should only do with their partner, and so he believes it would be cheating. Do you believe one can cheat only if they have penetrative vaginal sex? That there’s no other way for a person to cheat?
 
PetraG said:
Honestly, there are arguments here against marriage here that only go to show how much contemporary views of sexuality are out of touch with reality. What is marriage, they say? Why should marriage have a narrow definition or a particular purpose that doesn’t revolve solely around what is in it for the people getting married? Marriage is whatever makes someone happy! Marriage is what you want to make of it!! And so we have people pretending to marry themselves and what marriage becomes is a tax dodge.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why you’re so offended that a married couple don’t feel like having sex. We work very well as a couple. I’ve helped him through his father dying, he’s helped me through settling into my job, we’ve crossed continents to be with each other when my job took me to the UK and he followed, we’re there for each other in sickness and in health, in good times and bad. Why get so hung up on sex? I know I asked earlier and you may have missed it; would you consider your marriage not real any more if for some reason you or your partner couldn’t have sex?
PetraG said:
Why, after all, should marriage as it is being defined–that is, to encompass any relationship the people getting “married” want it to–be worthy of any name at all? Why should society give married couples benefits that unmarried people can’t give to anyone they want to give them to? What’s the excuse? It does come to be a way to get advantages that married people get for reasons that ought to be very unclear to those not getting married and not getting those advantages.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the government checks if you have sex, friend. I don’t think they care. And why should they? We live together, support each other, everything for us is the same as a married couple who does have sex but who hasn’t had a child (or can’t). Should married couples who are infertile be denied marriage?
 
PetraG said:
40.png
Thorolfr:
Laws on “alienation of affection” don’t make much sense to me since anyone who commits adultery should be responsible for their own actions. No need to blame someone else beside the cheating spouse as if they are not able to control themselves. As for your first example, I don’t see why same-sex couples shouldn’t be able to sue for the same thing since sex is also an important component of their relationships.
Click to expand...
I think you can see that the Church does not want to find itself in the position where teaching that homosexual relationships are not marriages and homosexual activities are wrong could be a civil offense.

You’re saying that same-sex couples should be able to sue for loss of consort, but people here are saying that marriage isn’t about sex. Someone needs to make up their minds about what marriage means. Does it have to do with sexual relationships that society has an interest in legislating, or doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
You’re conflating two separate arguments 🙂 Sex shouldn’t be the defining point of a marriage. But for those where it is something they enjoy then sure, sue away I guess. Marriage also entitles the woman to take the fellow’s surname, or vice versa, just because a couple doesn’t take that right doesn’t make them not married either.
 
Not persecution neccesarily, but bearing sufferings out of love for God. I thought that redemptive suffering might tie into this particular beatitude. One could consider it a persecution of the flesh.
 
Last edited:
Alex337 said:
🙂 Sex shouldn’t be the defining point of a marriage. But for those where it is something they enjoy then sure, sue away I guess.
Click to expand...
Marriage historically has always been about families. Forming a family always united two into one. This didn’t make sex a defining element but a necessary one. Alex, you seem to be reducing the meaning of sex to a pleasant experience.
 
SeriousQuestion said:
Not persecution neccesarily, but bearing sufferings out of love for God. I thought that redemptive suffering might tie into this particular beatitude. One could consider it a persecution of the flesh.
Click to expand...
Yes. Redemptive suffering is always united to Christ on the cross. I see now.👍
 
Marriage is quite complex, but the reasoning behind certain restrictions kind of went unsaid.
 
Complex in as much as it is characterized by human nature. I think, human beings as a whole have become more separated from our own nature. The things left unsaid were naturally lived out before. I think maybe it’s a case of not needing to teach what was generally still done naturally even if not understood theologically.
 
Benadam said:
40.png
Alex337:
🙂 Sex shouldn’t be the defining point of a marriage. But for those where it is something they enjoy then sure, sue away I guess.
Click to expand...
Marriage historically has always been about families. Forming a family always united two into one. This didn’t make sex a defining element but a necessary one. Alex, you seem to be reducing the meaning of sex to a pleasant experience.
Click to expand...
I fear you may have missed the rest of this discussion. I’ve been saying that sex isn’t the defining aspect and pointed out that while a woman who has had a uterus removed could be married according to the Catholic opinion on the matter, a man who can’t become erect couldn’t; this shows that the concern there is on the sex rather than on the procreative act specifically.

Sex is also not necessary for creating a family unless you don’t believe that childless couples aren’t a family, or that adoptive families are also not families.
 
I did not say that God would accept abominations such as pedophilia and all other sins because he is all loving. I said that because he is all loving he would accept genuinely all loving relationships between consenting adults. This does not matter whether it is heterosexual or gay marriage.
You cannot even put pedophilia and gay marriage in the same casket. Gay or heterosexual marriage should be pure, loving and above all, true, whereas sins such as pedophilia and rape are not, nor have they ever been.
 
Adults can have a consenting, genuine relationship in adultery and fornication but this doesn’t make them moral. This seems more like speculation.The ends don’t justify the means. Homosexuality was once considered an abomination. Incest also falls under this category.
 
Last edited:
SeriousQuestion said:
Adults can have a consenting, genuine relationship in adultery and fornication but this doesn’t make them moral. This seem more like speculation.The ends don’t justify the means.
Click to expand...
False comparison. In the instance of adultery the person’s partner did not consent.
 
The person’s partner wasn’t part of this relationship. Even if they consent I am pretty sure that it would still be immoral. It also fit the guidelines she gave.
 
Last edited:
SeriousQuestion said:
The person’s partner wasn’t part of this relationship. Even if they did I am pretty sure that it would still be immoral.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid I have to disagree, once you’re someone’s partner you are a part of their relationships. Why would it be immoral if all parties knew?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top