Question: Is gay marriage sinful?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chris.richmond.belch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Moderators will no doubt get to it soon. I predict…adios to both post and new member.
 
Heterosexual rape is a crime of violence against another human person. Homosexual intercourse is an offense (“violence”) towards God. Homosexual rape, then, is both. Doubly wicked.
'Nuff said.

thread muted
 
Last edited:
Anyway. To address some of your points.
PLeasedonotbenieve said:
“The Bible clearly states that being gay is a sin.”
Click to expand...
To begin with, this is wrong. Catholicism does not believe that being attracted to the same-sex in of itself is sinful. What is sinful is acting on that attraction. So, you’ll hear no complaints from us on that point.
PLeasedonotbenieve said:
does this really mean that all males and all females need to end up with opposite sex partners?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. They may never marry, and thus never have a partner of the opposite sex. This is a position that is praised by St. Paul (1 Corinthians 7).
PLeasedonotbenieve said:
Are all of those aspects of humanity “unnatural”?
Click to expand...
I think you may misunderstand what is meant by un-natural in regards to homosexuality.
PLeasedonotbenieve said:
Plus, if gay people are not meant to be with their suitable helper/companions, are they meant to be alone, without a helper? I believe God would say no, according to Genesis 2:18.
Click to expand...
All wives are helpers, but not all helpers are wives. You could have a friend, for example, or a therapist help you through emotional and psychological hardship without the relationship Adam had with Eve. Catholicism does not call for those with same-sex attraction to be alienated and live lives bereft of human companionship. Have you heard of the apostolate Courage, by the way?
PLeasedonotbenieve said:
monogamous, committed, loving relationships
Click to expand...
You could also have a monogamous (in so far as its exclusive), committed, and “loving” relationship with someone of the opposite-sex and never marry them, but it’s still a sin. They were there to rape the Angel’s, sure, but the sin of rape in this case would be compounded with the fact that it would be with the same-sex.
PLeasedonotbenieve said:
so is eating shrimp, crop co-mingling, eating rabbit, wearing linen and wool at the same time, and eating raw meat. So if you’re going to be a Biblical literalist, you might as well start sewing your own clothes and becoming a vegetarian.
Click to expand...
This old hat argument is a demonstration of ignorance of the New Covenant. We Catholics are not bound to the laws of the Old Covenant, we are under a new Covenant. I can’t do this topic justice, so I’ll refer you to an article written by this site:

 
Last edited:
PLeasedonotbenieve said:
arsenokoitai and malakoi.
Click to expand...
Somehow, those scholars from centuries before either didn’t know Biblical Greek or had lost materials like you said. Don’t you find it the least bit strange that God would allow such a huge misunderstanding to exist among His people for no reason other than that for so long? Or is it more likely that it’s not the case? I think it’s the latter.

Anyway. Translations. Here’s a translation from the Douay-Rheims for 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:
“6:9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers:
6:10 Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.”
Click to expand...
The Douay-Rheims was published in 1582, so I don’t know if that meets your definition for “new”, but you must admit that’s pretty old. And it very specifically says “liers with man-kind” for the part that would say homosexuality, so I’d say that’s very clearly condemning homosexuality. Since it speaks of the effeminate before that, and being female is obviously not a sin, we know he’s referring to men. So, he’s not talking about adulterers nor fornicators there. The Douay-Rheims was translated from the Latin Vulgate, which is about 1600 years old. It would not be difficult to translate between Latin and Greek in 400 AD. Here’s what it says:
“6:9 An nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt ? Nolite errare : neque fornicarii, neque idolis servientes, neque adulteri,
6:10 neque molles, neque masculorum concubitores, neque fures, neque avari, neque ebriosi, neque maledici, neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt.”
Click to expand...
Pretty close, don’t you think?

Lastly, regarding those Greek words, I’ll refer you to another article here on Catholic Answers:

https://www.catholic.com/index.php/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-on-homosexual-behavior
“But proposals that seek to exclude consensual same-sex relations from the meaning of arsenokoitai and malakoi are not plausible. If Paul was condemning predatory man-boy love, then why didn’t he use the Greek word for pederasty (paiderastes)? Also, if this is what Paul condemned, then why did he single out female same-sex couples in Romans when he was only concerned with predatory man-boy sex and not same-sex relations in general?”
Click to expand...
“The fact that arsenokoitai matches the Greek words in the Septuagint’s translation of Leviticus 20:13 is unmistakable. The word breaks down to arseno (or “male”) and koite (or “bed”). It literally means “man-bedder.” It makes more sense to say that malakoi referred to the soft or effeminate passive recipient of same-sex behavior, while arsenokoitaireferred to the active partner in that kind of intercourse, and not just sexually exploitative relationships.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thank you for staying strong and fighting for facts and logic with facts and logic. History is great.😃
 
Last edited:
Fauken, you’re very patient indeed. I’ve flagged two posts here in a short time, one for crude and offensive language and one for a blatant personal insult. I don’t know why this kind of behavior is tolerated, but I won’t respond to anyone who engages in it. Good luck to you!
 
That’s a good point, but I also think it’s important to consider the cultural context of the time.
 
Woah this thread got heated pretty fast! And I just got here! Sweetie I think that if you like your dad’s friend then you should probably go. Love the person not the act, right? do what you think would be best and what would make god proud. good luck!
 
JasonPT said:
That’s a good point, but I also think it’s important to consider the cultural context of the time.
Click to expand...
And which cultural context would that be? This would be during around the time of the Romans, where homosexuality was fine (for men so long as they acted, shall we say, as the man). The Greeks were famous for pederasty. And if @PLeasedonotbenieve is right, then even the Jewish people were okay with it. But St. Paul speaks against this practice of the most powerful country in the world at that time, along with a practice of his own people.
 
Last edited:
I was reading that other thread earlier and that one got pretty heated too. Good for you for keeping a positive attitude and giving kind and encouraging words. 😀
 
thank you for the kind words! I believe that we all need to cool off and encourage the author of this thread to listen to their heart about what to do. Indeed this is a difficult situation but im positive they will do what ever you think is the right thing to do.
 
Customs that were practiced and were common in he locations culture. Like how tearing off your clothes in Peter’s time meant that he was expressing great frustration. It’s kind of fascinating when you think about it.
 
Alex337 said:
Well for me it says that I’ve considered the topic in depth and don’t believe homosexuality is a sin 🙂
Click to expand...
The whole concept of “sin” doesn’t really resonate with me very much any more, especially after reading stories like the one about the man picking up sticks on the sabbath in Numbers, 15:32-36:
32 When the Israelites were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp.” 36 The whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.
Click to expand...
I can kind of understand the concept that it might have been wrong for this man to be picking up sticks on the Sabbath after what God said about “keeping the Sabbath day holy.” So, that would be what we call a “sin” which is usually defined as a “transgression against divine law.” I might even agree that this man should have been admonished perhaps or given some small punishment. But that God should have ordered that this man be stoned to death seems like an unusually cruel and disproportionate punishment for the “sin” that he committed. I have a hard time believing in such a god or that such a god could love us. We call Him “Father” but what father would do such a thing to one of his children?

And then there’s the story of Uzzah in 1 Chronicles 13:7-11:
7 They moved the ark of God from Abinadab’s house on a new cart, with Uzzah and Ahio guiding it. 8 David and all the Israelites were celebrating with all their might before God, with songs and with harps, lyres, timbrels, cymbals and trumpets.

9 When they came to the threshing floor of Kidon, Uzzah reached out his hand to steady the ark, because the oxen stumbled. 10 The Lord’s anger burned against Uzzah, and he struck him down because he had put his hand on the ark. So he died there before God.

11 Then David was angry because the Lord’s wrath had broken out against Uzzah, and to this day that place is called Perez Uzzah.
Click to expand...
If it was a “sin” for Uzzah to reach out and touch the ark, it was, I believe, a minor one since it was obviously not his intent to do something wrong. In fact, it would have been a normal human reflex to reach out and steady the ark when the Oxen stumbled so that it didn’t fall off the cart and Uzzah might have done this before he even had a chance to think about it. Punishing Uzzah with death seems again to be totally disproportionate to the “sin” involved here and even David was angry at God for this.

So, I have to ask myself, do I really believe in a god that punishes people for “sins” like this with cruel and disproportionate punishments? Do I really even believe in “sins” anymore?
 
Last edited:
This is an interesting topic. But I believe that since we are all fualted humans that we don’t really have the right to decide what is sinful or what is not sinful. That’s really up to God to be the judge. If you know somebody who is homosexual and/or is getting married then just show them love and respect. We are all god’s children and nobody is better than anybody else.
 
PLeasedonotbenieve said:
Plus, if gay people are not meant to be with their suitable helper/companions, are they meant to be alone, without a helper? I believe God would say no, according to Genesis 2:18.
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ himself said some people are not called to marriage. While it is true that we should not be alone in our lives, that doesn’t mean we should just suddenly allow everyone to follow their desires (which are tainted by our fallen nature) and marry whomever for the sake of not being alone.

As a man who experiences this attraction I find that I will have greater satisfaction and happiness with friendships with Christ like brothers and sisters compared to a male lover because I know God wants me to carry my cross and to deny my flesh.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top