Question: Is gay marriage sinful?

[theCardinalbird]

Sorry, but you kind of have defined it on sex. You deny that impotent couples, or couples who do not want sex, are married.

No I have said a man or woman who suffers impotence, either physically or psychologically, cannot enter into marriage because he or she cannot physically consummate the marriage. According to the Code of Canon Law, antecedent and perpetual impotence at the time of marriage invalidates the marriage (No. 1984.1). In sum, a person who is impotent cannot enter into marriage validly. Quite simply, a marriage must be consummated. (Note that impotence that occurs after the consummation does not impact upon the validity of the marriage; for example, if a husband suffers prostrate cancer later in life and undergoes surgery or treatment which renders him impotent, the marriage still retains its validity.)

People have to carry their crosses. We must give them compassion and sympathy as this is something hard to deal with. But anyway, you think all of this is dumb so I will not be answering anymore of your questions on this matter. Good day…

Read this article (as it explains your concerns) and then let me be, I have important things to tend to:

Why The Church Cannot Marry the Impotent | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[brit_2911]

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.

The procreative nature and unitive nature of sex cannot be separated. This is valid and has been proved from a deeply philosophical and theological background. To say otherwise is not only to misunderstand the nature of sex as a whole, but to reject the credibility of Mother Church.

Do not compare humans to animals. We are two different things. Do not downgrade our value to that of an animal. God gave morals, virtue, and salvation to humans, not animals. To compare our sexuality with that of animals is distorted.

I recommend studying St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body to help you better understand why the church teaches this and why is it ultimately the truth scientifically, theologically, and philosophically.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Yes; and that makes no sense. There are plenty of ways to be unitive, and no reason why vaginal penetrative sex is the only way

The reason being is because that is ordered towards procreation. Sorry but not sorry if you dont agree with it, I can’t change it and I do not see the Church changing God’s divine law of marriage being between man and woman.

Except of course when it’s not ordered towards procreation such as with infertile couples.

Alex337:

Meanwhile the Church tries to say sex should be for procreation but don’t care when infertile people do it, it’s obviously just sex.

It should be for procreation, but some couples have to carry the cross of not being able to have kids. God only created one form of marriage. Gay marriage was never his intention and should not be put side by side with heterosexual marriage in this regard. Regardless of its fertility or infertility on any specific occasion, the coital act is procreative by its nature - as only it can produce life - even when and if procreation does not result, as it does not in the vast majority of cases during a couple’s fertile lifetime.

Fun fact, that’s not true, it is possible for a person to become pregnant from non-vaginal sex.

Is the nature of marital relations fundamentally different during the frequent instances when pregnancy does not occur? Are those acts, then, equivalent in kind to homosexual acts? At a certain point, all heterosexual couples become permanently infertile due to age, but does this make the character of their acts sodomitical? It does not. They are no less marital or generative in their nature because they always remain, in their “one-flesh” aspect, unitive - something a homosexual act can never be. Unitive coition is obviously the necessary precondition for procreation, which is why these acts remain generative in their essence.

This ties back to the old discussion of what the sin of Sodom was; do you want to go back to that discussion?

Alex337:

Do you honestly think sex is the defining aspect of marriage? That it is so important that if two people were engaged and they found out that they couldn’t have sex that they should just call the whole thing off? And you think this isn’t sex obsessed?

That answer is something I would ask a priest about.

I’m interested in your answer.

 

[brit_2911]

All honesty the Church seems very hung up on sex

Sex literally gives life, continues the human race, and unites a couple together. Yes, sex is VERY important. If there are medical issues involved, there is more to consider.

Sex is so distorted presently in our culture, no wonder the Church focuses on it so much! Satan destroys the world be getting to the very foundation of it—the family. Once it is interrupted, corruption is rampant. I’m so thankful the Church actually takes the time to extensively teach about sex and family.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Sorry, but you kind of have defined it on sex. You deny that impotent couples, or couples who do not want sex, are married.

No I have said a man or woman who suffers impotence, either physically or psychologically, cannot enter into marriage because he or she cannot physically consummate the marriage. According to the Code of Canon Law, antecedent and perpetual impotence at the time of marriage invalidates the marriage (No. 1984.1). In sum, a person who is impotent cannot enter into marriage validly. Quite simply, a marriage must be consummated. (Note that impotence that occurs after the consummation does not impact upon the validity of the marriage; for example, if a husband suffers prostrate cancer later in life and undergoes surgery or treatment which renders him impotent, the marriage still retains its validity.)

People have to carry their crosses. We must give them compassion and sympathy as this is something hard to deal with. But anyway, you think all of this is dumb so I will not be answering anymore of your questions on this matter. Good day…

Read this article (as it explains your concerns) and then let me be, I have important things to tend to:

Why The Church Cannot Marry the Impotent | Catholic Answers

I read the article. But as per the bolded show how you have defined marriage based on sex.

 

[Alex337]

The procreative nature and unitive nature of sex cannot be separated. This is valid and has been proved from a deeply philosophical and theological background. To say otherwise is not only to misunderstand the nature of sex as a whole, but to reject the credibility of Mother Church.

Disagreeing is different to not understanding. Sorry but sex is just one way to bond and find unity, it’s not the only or even the best way for everyone. If it works for you, I’m glad. It doesn’t for me.

Do not compare humans to animals. We are two different things. Do not downgrade our value to that of an animal. God gave morals, virtue, and salvation to humans, not animals. To compare our sexuality with that of animals is distorted.

People are animals, we’re thinking animals. We’re certainly not plants or fungi.

I recommend studying St. John Paul II’s Theology of the Body to help you better understand why the church teaches this and why is it ultimately the truth scientifically, theologically, and philosophically.

I read it years ago and disagreed with some of it.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

All honesty the Church seems very hung up on sex

Sex literally gives life, continues the human race, and unites a couple together. Yes, sex is VERY important. If there are medical issues involved, there is more to consider.

Sex is so distorted presently in our culture, no wonder the Church focuses on it so much! Satan destroys the world be getting to the very foundation of it—the family. Once it is interrupted, corruption is rampant. I’m so thankful the Church actually takes the time to extensively teach about sex and family.

Sex can give life, it doesn’t always and doesn’t need to. Lots of biological functions are essential for life; eating, drinking, even defecating are all needed for life. I don’t feel the need to put them up on a pedestal and obsess about them.

 

[brit_2911]

Disagreeing is different to not understanding. Sorry but sex is just one way to bond and find unity, it’s not the only or even the best way for everyone. If it works for you, I’m glad. It doesn’t for me.

Truth isn’t relative.

I realize now, you are not Catholic. Now I see why you disagree. But like I said, truth isn’t relative. There is one true teaching and one true Church. I’m sorry for whatever reason you left, and I hope you come back.

I still disagree with you about relating us so closely sexually to animals, as Scripture seems to tell me that my inherent worth and dignity is far greater than an animal’s. And again, God did not give them morals as He did us.

God bless

 

[PetraG]

All honesty the Church seems very hung up on sex. I mean they say it’s all about procreation, but given it’s open to infertile couples it’s obviously not. And it ignores that a loving impotent couple could act as adoptive parents and thus be “open to life”, instead denying them marriage purely because they can’t have sex.

Yes, the Church is always accused of being hung up on sex whenever the Church doesn’t agree with people who believe they are an exception to moral boundaries having to do with sex or if the Church still holds that marriage has a purpose other than whatever someone wants to make of it. It isn’t that people don’t have moral boundaries, mind you. They just don’t like to be told that what they want to do isn’t inside the boundaries.

It could just be that the Church is not the side of the equation that is obsessed with sex. It could just be that the priority given to individual preference has been taken to an extreme not seen in human history, too.

It also could be that a lot of people who aren’t Catholic sure spend a lot of time thinking about how they’d improve the Catholic Church, if they were the bishops.

Why is that? Why do people come here not to learn what the Church teaches, but to argue with it, as if they’re going to change it? Why would someone outside the Church make it their business to change the Church? Do these same people go to other religions and do the same thing, or does the Catholic Church hold a special fascination?

 

[SeriousQuestion]

Accepting sin is not the same as loving our neighbor. What if God put pedophilia as an attraction inside someone and it is an intrinsic part of who they are? Does that suddenly make it moral? We are a fallen creation and we bear all sorts of flaws. Even heterosexuality has its own problems and abuses. I think you should stop putting words in God’s mouth.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

That’s a qualification not a definition. There are other impediments to marriage.

 

[somecanadian]

It is gravely sinful because such a union harms not only those participating but society as a whole as this couple may or may not decide to raise children who cannot be conceived through natural means. We know children raised with same-sex parents are at a disadvantage. It also promotes and normalizes sexual behavior that is harmful psychologically, physically and at times emotionally.

All ‘sinful’ acts come down to harm. They are sinful because they cause harm either to ourselves or to others. If it’s sinful, it’s harmful and ‘gay marriage’ is harmful to society as well as to those who come into such a union.

Society likes to look at ‘love’. Oh! It’s all about love. Just let them love.

But romantic love, lustful love and pure love are all very different things. Not all love is ‘good’. What about the man who romantically ‘loves’ a little 5-year-old girl. That clearly is not a ‘good love’.

I am not equating homosexuality to pedophilia btw but I was just using that to demonstrate that not all love should be blindly accepted as good.

Women often claim to ‘love’ their boyfriends who physically and terribly abuse them.

Men claim to love the women who abuse them.

Not all love is properly ordered.

To summarize: Gay marriage is sinful because it is causes harm in a variety of ways (some which we won’t understand for some time as society adapts and reacts to its legalization).

 

[Alex337]

And that’s semantics. It’s a defining aspect according to that argument. Unless marriage is marriage without preventative vaginal intercourse?

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Disagreeing is different to not understanding. Sorry but sex is just one way to bond and find unity, it’s not the only or even the best way for everyone. If it works for you, I’m glad. It doesn’t for me.

Truth isn’t relative.

I realize now, you are not Catholic. Now I see why you disagree. But like I said, truth isn’t relative. There is one true teaching and one true Church. I’m sorry for whatever reason you left, and I hope you come back.

I still disagree with you about relating us so closely sexually to animals, as Scripture seems to tell me that my inherent worth and dignity is far greater than an animal’s. And again, God did not give them morals as He did us.

God bless

We’re still animals, definitely not plant per fungi. But that doesn’t preclude morals; we’re thinking animals

 

[Alex337]

Well personally I don’t have any intention of changing the church and simply enjoy discussion, I thought I’d explained that? If other folk want to base their marriage on sex as a defining thing they’re more than welcome, I find it an odd choice but support their right to do so.

 

[Alex337]

To summarize: you didn’t mention a single way homosexual marriage harms anyone and somehow compared it to abusive relationships. Classy.

 

[somecanadian]

I actually did? I referenced how children raised in same-sex homes are at a distinct disadvantage. I also mentioned how promotion of an unhealthy lifestyle hurts society as a whole as more people will seek that unhealthy lifestyle.

Homosexual people suffer from higher rates of depression and I believe that’s not just due to societal acceptance. Societal acceptance is at an all time high but depression continues to be consistently higher in homosexual communities.

Promiscuity is much higher in homosexual circles which leads to, predictably, much higher rates of STDs.

I mean, I could go on.

I made it clear my example of abusive relationships was just to demonstrate that ‘love’ is not always good. And that saying ‘just let people love each other’ is not a good enough reason to promote homosexuality as a whole.

PS: Yup. I’m real classy. But also ad-hominem’s don’t disprove any of my points.

 

[Alex337]

I actually did? I referenced how children raised in same-sex homes are at a distinct disadvantage. I also mentioned how promotion of an unhealthy lifestyle hurts society as a whole as more people will seek that unhealthy lifestyle.

Homosexual people suffer from higher rates of depression and I believe that’s not just due to societal acceptance. Societal acceptance is at an all time high but depression continues to be consistently higher in homosexual communities.

Promiscuity is much higher in homosexual circles which leads to, predictably, much higher rates of STDs.

I mean, I could go on.

I made it clear my example of abusive relationships was just to demonstrate that ‘love’ is not always good. And that saying ‘just let people love each other’ is not a good enough reason to promote homosexuality as a whole.

PS: Yup. I’m real classy. But also ad-hominem’s don’t disprove any of my points.

Except that studies have shown that children raised in lesbian households perform better. Nor did you show how it hurts society.

You manage to say that acceptance is high while also claiming they actively harm society; sorry but that shows it’s not as high as you may think.

STD rates are higher largely due to a lack of adequate sexual health education for the community as every time someone tries someone else cries out that such things shouldn’t be taught, not a sign of high acceptance.

Australia just voted on marriage equality and while it was a landslide there was still 40% of people who disagreed and went so far as spreading misinformation and driving vans around equating homosexuality to pedophilia: that is not what acceptance looks like.

And I will point out when someone’s argument is needlessly hateful

 

[somecanadian]

My initial response is being moderated because I provided links to some sources for you.

In the meantime I would just like to point out that what I believe or don’t believe about same-sex marriage hardly matters. In my country it’s legal and that isn’t going to change. Whether I believe it’s sinful or not doesn’t and shouldn’t affect your life. I’m sure there are many things I do that you think is problematic as well, like my comment which you take umbrage to.

There is no hate in my comments. I am simply answering the question at hand and being rather blunt at it. Anyway, if my post with links isn’t posted then we may as well leave the conversation where is because my studies don’t agree with your studies. So there it is.

PS: Just for some clarity, I also believe single parent homes are damaging to children, I also believe promiscuity in heteros is bad, I also believe heteros who treat marriage like a throw away are damaging to society, I believe things like sperm donor babies is harmful to society and I believe divorce harms society… so it’s not as if I’m targeting any one group.

 

[somecanadian]

https://familywatch.org/fwi/policy_brief_ss_parenting.pdf

The studies you’re referring to were problematic. As time goes on I do believe we will start to see more and more backlash from these families.

I ALSO think we see backlash from single-parent homes, from sperm donor children and other ‘harmful’ activities as well.

I should clarify that I also think pre-marital sex harms society. I also think single-parent homes harm society and I also believe promiscuous straight people harm society.

You admit that STDs are higher but don’t acknowledge that promiscuity is higher.

https://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity

I could post more links but I don’t want to completely overwhelm this thread.

I am not hateful. I have no hatred towards homosexuals. Just because I think certain behaviors are problematic doesn’t mean I think the person exhibiting the behavior is problematic. The thing is I can recognize that how I view things isn’t how everyone else views things.

I am curious, are you not Catholic? I presumed you were asking as a Catholic who wanted more information about the Catholic faith?