Question: Is gay marriage sinful?

[Limoncello4021]

Any sexual relation beyond marriage between one man and one woman is sinful. We all commit sins, but entering into a commitment to daily, hourly sin is deadly serious. It is “living in sin.” Who wants to do that?

 

[Monica83]

If a homosexual person has ever heard that homosexual sex or “marriage” is a sin(and I’m guessing they have), then they have been educated. Whether or not they accept it as a sin does not matter.

 

[Reuben_J]

It is a sin. Do not tell me that they are not culpable.

 

[Alex337]

catholic1seeks:

But this doesn’t answer why entering into a gay marriage is gravely sinful .

I would say the primary probem is that a “gay marriage” is a public celebration of a sexual relationship between two people of the same sex. A secondary problem (but still potentially a very serious one) is that it makes a mockery of a sacrament.

Intrigued; do you also think nonCatholic marriages are a mockery of the sacrament?

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Gay marriage kinda doesn’t really exist.
Oh, we have the legal permission to do so.
But theologically and per natural law, it’s not a thing

There are many unions which fall under the legal umbrella of “marriage” that are not recognized as such by the Church: shotgun marriages, marriages entered into while using contraception, remarriages of Christians following divorce, first-cousin marriages, marriages where abuse/infidelity was present from the outset, etc. Though they are not sacramental, they are still recognized by the law, so I can’t say they aren’t marriages.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

Who wants to do that?

People want to be loved. For many, if not most, long-term intimate relationships are an integral part of that.

 

[Limoncello4021]

Yes people want to be loved. But to elevate human love above God’s command, and to commit yourself to so sinning against God day in and day out merits hell. This is the truth.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

But the question was asked from a theological/moral standpoint and only asked about homosexual unions

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

See, for many people the edicts against non-heterosexual relationships are like Islam’s prohibition of alcohol: maybe it made sense in a particular culture at a particular time in history, but it just doesn’t anymore. Saying that these people merit hell doesn’t help matters much.

 

[Seagull]

Of course it is a sin.
It’s been that way for a long time - till recently.
Politicians - want votes - so they’re ‘naturally’ for it.
They passed laws.
Now you can’t say it’s sinful - without consequences !
Etc

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

You have an excellent point.
I’m of the opinion that the persistent abuse of the matrimonial state by heterosexuals set in motion the series of events that led to the legalization of gay marriage.

 

[Alex337]

From my understanding marriage has existed in many forms. Matrimony is one but it hardly unique or even the first form marriage has taken.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

So what?

10 caricatures

 

[Alex337]

So it’s not really abusing a thing that has existed in many forms for millennia.

 

[Paul71]

Intrigued; do you also think nonCatholic marriages are a mockery of the sacrament?

Many marriages between non-Catholics are perfectly valid, even if not sacramental. I don’t see these as any kind of mockery at all. They are a legitimate good.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Intrigued; do you also think nonCatholic marriages are a mockery of the sacrament?

Many marriages between non-Catholics are perfectly valid, even if not sacramental. I don’t see these as any kind of mockery at all. They are a legitimate good.

Interesting. So marriage as a thing is older than matrimony, as such how can it be a mockery of it?

 

[Paul71]

Interesting. So marriage as a thing is older than matrimony, as such how can it be a mockery of it?

Are you using the word “matrimony” to refer specifically to sacramental marriage? If so, then I agree with you that marriage is older than the sacrament of matrimony. And I don’t think that the institution of marriage itself, or any particular valid marriage, is a mockery of the sacrament of matrimony.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Interesting. So marriage as a thing is older than matrimony, as such how can it be a mockery of it?

Are you using the word “matrimony” to refer specifically to sacramental marriage? If so, then I agree with you that marriage is older than the sacrament of matrimony. And I don’t think that the institution of marriage itself, or any particular valid marriage, is a mockery of the sacrament of matrimony.

Cool. Language is an imprecise beast

In that case since we can look at marriage being different to matrimony how is a gay marriage a mockery?

 

[Paul71]

since we can look at marriage being different to matrimony

I wouldn’t quite use the word “different,” because they are essentially the same thing. I don’t even typically use the word “matrimony,” although I recognize that it is a valid word to use. Instead, I tend to refer to “sacramental marriage.” In other words, the sacrament of marriage (or matrimony) is marriage, raised up to the level of a sacrament.

how is a gay marriage a mockery?

It uses many of the trappings of marriage, even the name “marriage,” to solemnize a union that by its very nature can never be a marriage, because that union is lacking the most fundamental ingredients of a marriage, which are a man and a woman. It also is a union based on homosexual acts, and those acts in a sense are a mockery of sexual intercourse.

Based on other posts you have made here, I don’t expect you to agree with me. But I am answering your question.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

since we can look at marriage being different to matrimony

I wouldn’t quite use the word “different,” because they are essentially the same thing. I don’t even typically use the word “matrimony,” although I recognize that it is a valid word to use. Instead, I tend to refer to “sacramental marriage.” In other words, the sacrament of marriage (or matrimony) is marriage, raised up to the level of a sacrament.

how is a gay marriage a mockery?

It uses many of the trappings of marriage, even the name “marriage,” to solemnize a union that by its very nature can never be a marriage, because that union is lacking the most fundamental ingredients of a marriage, which are a man and a woman. It also is a union based on homosexual acts, and those acts in a sense are a mockery of sexual intercourse.

Based on other posts you have made here, I don’t expect you to agree with me. But I am answering your question.

It’s making for a good discussion though and I always enjoy a polite discussion where we can explain our views.

I don’t think marriage and matrimony are the same, they have enough differences to be unique. Matrimony is a form of marriage, much like Catholicism is a form of Christianity.

Marriage is a social construct, there is no natural marriage. Marriages can be formed up of multiple men, multiple women, same sex or opposite sex. Through history and across culture we have seen a tonne of different formats.

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.