Question: Is gay marriage sinful?

[Augustinian]

Right. The baker is denying service based on sexual orientation. That’s not good.

He’s denying it based on the customer’s political beliefs,not their sexual practices.

Not everyone who is homosexual thinks Gay Marriage is a good idea.

 

[Mtdobbs]

I respect that you came to the defence of those who have been maligned, discriminated against, ostracized. We all need to be doing this. It can be easy to ignore an injustice especially if it doesn’t affect us personally. I’m glad you opinion is so strong and comes from a place of honest concern and love for your brothers and sisters.

 

[PJH_74]

Corporations are just groups of people investing their money for a common cause. Since people have religions, why do you think its remarkable that a corporation would too?

I think the main difference here is that the Gay Community chose the baker because he’s a little guy who really doesn’t have the means to defend himself against them. Do battle with a major corporation, they can fight back.

I think there is a difference. Corporations by law are required to be equal opportunity employers. Also, we have individual employees at these companies who are the little guy.

As for the class baker thing, I think it would be silly to think that neither side had something to gain from making them high profile. It’s the perfect narrative for either side to howl about and feed social media with.

 

[ATraveller]

On divorce and gay ‘marriage’, two wrongs don’t make a right. The Lord’s view and teachings aren’t dependent on each other and He isn’t going to make one valid because some are hypocrites on the other.

 

[JimG]

With respect to the original question gtay marriage is contrary to the natural law and the moral law. Human beings come in two sexes: male and female. They are complementary for a reason. Only persons of complemetary sex are capable of marital relatiions. Same sex relationships are non-marital by nature. They cannot be marriage, since there is nothing marital about them

 

[Alex337]

Allowing people to deny service to people based on their sexual orientation is hideous. I’ve already explained how these laws stop medical personnel and teachers from denying service to homosexual people.

 

[Paul71]

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

I would agree with that interpretation, except that you seem to imply that mockery is their intention, and I doubt that is true in most cases. And that brings us right back to the original question about the moral nature of an act, versus a particular person’s knowledge of the moral nature of that act or culpability for that act.

 

[Paul71]

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.

Why do you think that this is true? Haven’t we had criticism and mocking of politicians for as long as or nearly as long as we have had politicians, as just one example? And your statement seems to imply that homosexual acts actually came before sexual intercourse in human history. That seems unlikely to be true, considering that reproduction must have happened in every generation, or we wouldn’t be here today.

 

[Alex337]

We mock a politician for the things they do, this the mocking happens after the event, see?

Homosexuality has gone on as long as history, and exists in the animal kingdom. It seems like to be about as old at heterosexuality. At least in terms of human consciousness.

 

[Paul71]

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.

I don’t believe that procreation has to be the goal of every act of sexual intercourse, nor that it has to be the result of every act of sexual intercourse. My post doesn’t say either of those things.

Regarding your last sentence about masturbation, I’m not claiming anything about anyone’s motivations for doing that. I’m making a judgment about the nature of that act and one way to interpret what it means, but I’m not judging anyone’s motivation for that act.

 

[Alex337]

You did say “possible”; I don’t think it needs to be.

 

[Paul71]

You did say “possible”; I don’t think it needs to be.

Where did I say “possible,” and what did you think I meant by it? If you are referring to this post, I don’t see the word “possible” there.

The point I made in the last part of that post is perhaps a bit nuanced. It isn’t about every act of sexual intercourse leading to procreation, or even having a possibility (outside of a miracle) of leading to procreation. It’s about whether a particular act is ordered toward procreation, by being the type of act that can potentially lead to procreation – i.e., the type of act in which the male and female reproductive systems come together to form a unified whole.

 

[Paul71]

We mock a politician for the things they do, this the mocking happens after the event, see?

Homosexuality has gone on as long as history, and exists in the animal kingdom. It seems like to be about as old at heterosexuality. At least in terms of human consciousness.

I’m not really understanding why this is a sticking point. It surely is obvious that sexual intercourse (coitus) is as old as the human race. If it were not, then the human race wouldn’t be here today. It is impossible for either of us to determine exactly when homosexual acts started, but they certainly can’t be more ancient than sexual intercourse.

But more important than a historical timeline is the question of which of these acts are fundamental to our biology. As I said before, the human race would not be here today without sexual intercourse. It is how our species reproduces. It is as fundamental to the long-term survival of our species as eating or breathing. On the other hand, homosexual acts are not in any way a part of the reproduction of our species or of our long-term survival. They serve no biological purpose.

 

[Alex337]

Actually many believe that homosexuality assists by creating couples willing to raise the children of others. It seems pretty fundamental.

 

[YoungCatholicGuy]

Your opinions don’t reflect God’s commandments. Or the Natural Law set down by God that sexual relations are designed for a mum and dad to create a biological family the natural way God intended. And that God set boundaries and consequences for breaking this law: as it is written in scripture: ‘Homosexuals shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. They shall be cast into the firey lake with Lucifer, the false prophet, the beast, and all Lucifer’s angels.’

 

[PetraG]

We mock a politician for the things they do, this the mocking happens after the event, see?

Homosexuality has gone on as long as history, and exists in the animal kingdom. It seems like to be about as old at heterosexuality. At least in terms of human consciousness.

Humans have done a lot of things as long as there have been humans–don’t let’s even get started on the things that the animals do! I can think of ten or fifteen right off the bat that are not only immoral but unthinkable. Can’t you? Let’s not talk as if finding some behavior or other among the animals has a thing to do with whether or not it is moral for a human to do it.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

We mock a politician for the things they do, this the mocking happens after the event, see?

Homosexuality has gone on as long as history, and exists in the animal kingdom. It seems like to be about as old at heterosexuality. At least in terms of human consciousness.

Humans have done a lot of things as long as there have been humans–don’t let’s even get started on the things that the animals do! I can think of ten or fifteen right off the bat that are not only immoral but unthinkable. Can’t you? Let’s not talk as if finding some behavior or other among the animals has a thing to do with whether or not it is moral for a human to do it.

Actually if you read what I said I was specifically disputing the word “mocking”. Not morality.

But I also see nothing morally wrong with homosexuality.

 

[tweedlealice]

Well,
‘Tis interesting! I don’t feel there is a gay person alive, who hasn’t been informed. His life style is a sin. If he is practicing his sexual actions, he sins. ERGO, if he knows that, then he knows 2 isn’t going to make it better. It is a sad situation. Is an atheist judged, since he doesn’t believe? He may not believe but he knows. If an atheist dies, heterosexual or homosexual, where does he go?
Now, in the general world, their is religion. He may not believe but he has been told. It is God’s place for judgement. But, rejecting God, isn’t good. Back to the lifestyle isn’t good.
I recall the man sent to hell,begging God to let him tell his family. He was denied.
There is a site by a Catholic theologian. It talks of four Limbos and Mystical Baptism. That means, if a person is a kind person, trying to help others and lives a good life, the Holy Spirit has been w him/her and guided them to holiness. As an Atheist, they can enter heaven. God has communicated w them,in order for them to have a good life.
The active sex part may change that.

 

[PetraG]

Actually if you read what I said I was specifically disputing the word “mocking”. Not morality.

But I also see nothing morally wrong with homosexuality.

Actually many believe that homosexuality assists by creating couples willing to raise the children of others. It seems pretty fundamental.

I don’t think someone is going to come up with much of a moral code if they go by being able to find someone or other who doesn’t see a thing wrong with it. This is a recipe to being a slave to the passions, for there is no human passion that doesn’t have its partisans, its “I don’t see anything so bad about ______,” even among some of the faithful.

The Church has consistently taught on this matter; there is no question about it. When we have a passion that disposes us towards an immoral action, we are to master the passion, not re-formulate the moral code to accommodate our passions on the grounds that the behavior can be found among the animals or some society outside of Christendom that we rush to count as worthy of imitation only because it is more permissive.

 

[Alex337]

I don’t think someone is going to come up with much of a moral code if they go by being able to find someone or other who doesn’t see a thing wrong with it. This is a recipe to being a slave to the passions, for there is no human passion that doesn’t have its partisans, its “I don’t see anything so bad about ______,” even among some of the faithful.

The Church has consistently taught on this matter; there is no question about it. When we have a passion that disposes us towards an immoral action, we are to master the passion, not re-formulate the moral code to accommodate our passions on the grounds that the behavior can be found among the animals or some society outside of Christendom that we rush to count as worthy of imitation only because it is more permissive.

I don’t think people loving each other makes them a slave to their passion. Otherwise I fear I’d have to think the same of heterosexuals.