Question: Is gay marriage sinful?

[Alex337]

Certainly seems to be, but okay, if you think.

 

[steve-b]

Is it a sin? For conservative Catholics, Evangelicals, Muslims and perhaps a few other religions it is. For everybody else, we have moved on.

and judgement day is coming

 

[Alex337]

Cool. Meet you there.

 

[steve-b]

Cool. Meet you there.

No body will miss it

 

[Alex337]

Thank goodness, we may want to make an invite page just in case. Now, shall you be trimming the wicks or shall I?

 

[steve-b]

Thank goodness, we may want to make an invite page just in case. Now, shall you be trimming the wicks or shall I?

Immaterial. You won’t be at my particular judgement nor will I be at yours.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Thank goodness, we may want to make an invite page just in case. Now, shall you be trimming the wicks or shall I?

Immaterial. You won’t be at my particular judgement nor will I be at yours.

Aww, but what about final judgment? I thought that was coming up? We should really organise the trumpets. So, I’m thinking a moodle poll to help time table, not everyone has facebook after all.

 

[Uriel1]

Recently I have seen otherwise devote Catholics start to argue that gay marriage is in fact not sinful because those engaged in it, do not have the knowledge or aren’t in a place to truly understand, and so they aren’t culpable and therefore the act of getting married to someone of another sex, isn’t sinful. It was my limited understanding that while knowledge could remove or lesson culpability, that it didn’t change the fact that the act itself (and this could be anything it doesn’t have to be gay marriage) is a sin. Am I just misunderstanding or is the act of gay marriage a sin?

Thank you!

I stand to be corrected but a civil celibate gay marriage is just a legal way of living responsibly in harmony; it is the homosexual act that is sinful.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Recently I have seen otherwise devote Catholics start to argue that gay marriage is in fact not sinful because those engaged in it, do not have the knowledge or aren’t in a place to truly understand, and so they aren’t culpable and therefore the act of getting married to someone of another sex, isn’t sinful. It was my limited understanding that while knowledge could remove or lesson culpability, that it didn’t change the fact that the act itself (and this could be anything it doesn’t have to be gay marriage) is a sin. Am I just misunderstanding or is the act of gay marriage a sin?

Thank you!

I can see this being a factor for those societies without modern technology, like natives living along the Amazon River. But if you have access to the internet, then can anyone say that they don’t know what the Bible says (or the traditional/common understanding) about homosexuality? Google?!

Also, if a gay couple gets married, and find out what the Bible says about their lifestyle after that marriage, are they then culpable? If not, then a woman who divorces to marry another should be allowed to stay in her new marriage. If both parties wanted to become Christians, then the Church would then have to accept both lifestyles as is without requiring separation.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Alex337:

Thank goodness, we may want to make an invite page just in case. Now, shall you be trimming the wicks or shall I?

Immaterial. You won’t be at my particular judgement nor will I be at yours.

Aww, but what about final judgment? I thought that was coming up? We should really organise the trumpets. So, I’m thinking a moodle poll to help time table, not everyone has facebook after all.

At death We know our outcome at that particular judgement…heaven or hell. The final judgement whenever that is, it could be billions of years away, won’t change that outcome … whether one has been in heaven or hell , at final judgement, all WILL have bodies again.

 

[steve-b]

Recently I have seen otherwise devote Catholics start to argue that gay marriage is in fact not sinful because those engaged in it, do not have the knowledge or aren’t in a place to truly understand, and so they aren’t culpable and therefore the act of getting married to someone of another sex, isn’t sinful. It was my limited understanding that while knowledge could remove or lesson culpability, that it didn’t change the fact that the act itself (and this could be anything it doesn’t have to be gay marriage) is a sin. Am I just misunderstanding or is the act of gay marriage a sin?

Thank you!

AgnosticBoy:

I can see this being a factor for those societies without modern technology, like natives living along the Amazon River. But if you have access to the internet, then can anyone say that they don’t know what the Bible says (or the traditional/common understanding) about homosexuality? Google?!

Good point.

As the CCC points out about ignorance

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

It’s never in history been so easy as it is today, to access knowledge.

AgnosticBoy:

Also, if a gay couple gets married, and find out what the Bible says about their lifestyle after that marriage, are they then culpable?

Yes

There are also chances that they knew all this anyway and chose to ignore it

AgnosticBoy:

If not, then a woman who divorces to marry another should be allowed to stay in her new marriage. If both parties wanted to become Christians, then the Church would then have to accept both lifestyles as is without requiring separation.

That conclusion then, would be the message being sent from that conclusion

 

[PetraG]

I stand to be corrected but a civil celibate gay marriage is just a legal way of living responsibly in harmony; it is the homosexual act that is sinful.

When this topic came up in Oregon, the Archbishop said that the civil union of adults for whom marriage is impossible for the sake of mutual care is a morally-permissible civil institution, but only provided that the right to sexual consort or the implication of sexual consort is not legally implied. An institution that gives the same rights as marriage on the premise that the relationships between two persons of the same sex are analogous or the same as those between a husband and wife are false, misleading and constitute a scandal.

 

[steve-b]

Uriel1:

I stand to be corrected but a civil celibate gay marriage is just a legal way of living responsibly in harmony; it is the homosexual act that is sinful.

When this topic came up in Oregon, the Archbishop said that the civil union of adults for whom marriage is impossible for the sake of mutual care is a morally-permissible civil institution, but only provided that the right to sexual consort or the implication of sexual consort is not legally implied. An institution that gives the same rights as marriage on the premise that the relationships between two persons of the same sex are analogous or the same as those between a husband and wife are false, misleading and constitute a scandal.

“civil union” can just as easily make a civil contract between themselves. They don’t have to violate the name marriage for their action

 

[PetraG]

It’s never in history been so easy as it is today, to access knowledge.

There are also chances that they knew all this anyway and chose to ignore it

In the defense of those who may be invincibly ignorant, it can be reasonably conceded that finding the truth could be likened to finding a needle in a haystack. There are many philosophies being touted as the truth and many people teaching that the Church’s position is not appropriate for a modern, educated, tolerant or even civilized person to accept. It is hard to believe that Providence will not find some people who have found a false way while trying their best. They may get a lighter sentence than those who knew the way and followed it more poorly than they could have:
“That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.” (Luke 12:47-48)
We who know everything required to make a saint and yet fail to become one are wise to hope for a bounty of mercy for all. We know that even others who do far worse may be deserving of a far lesser sentence than we deserve, whatever Heaven determines our sentence may be.

 

[PetraG]

“civil union” can just as easily make a civil contract between themselves. They don’t have to violate the name marriage for their action

At the time, Oregon was considering a law that would have instituted a civil union for those who could not marry, so this wasn’t an issue that was raised.

 

[Uriel1]

Uriel1:

I stand to be corrected but a civil celibate gay marriage is just a legal way of living responsibly in harmony; it is the homosexual act that is sinful.

When this topic came up in Oregon, the Archbishop said that the civil union of adults for whom marriage is impossible for the sake of mutual care is a morally-permissible civil institution, but only provided that the right to sexual consort or the implication of sexual consort is not legally implied. An institution that gives the same rights as marriage on the premise that the relationships between two persons of the same sex are analogous or the same as those between a husband and wife are false, misleading and constitute a scandal.

In the UK homosexuals may have a civil partnership, or a civil marriage,
straight couples cannot have the civil partnership so equality is non extant.

It is necessary for continuity of care, at the end of life that those who provide mutual care can have the “last will and testament” benefits necessary, so I think we need a Vatican ruling on this really

 

[AgnosticBoy]

In the defense of those who may be invincibly ignorant, it can be reasonably conceded that finding the truth could be likened to finding a needle in a haystack. There are many philosophies being touted as the truth and many people teaching that the Church’s position is not appropriate for a modern, educated, tolerant or even civilized person to accept. It is hard to believe that Providence will not find some people who have found a false way while trying their best. They may get a lighter sentence than those who knew the way and followed it more poorly than they could have:

It is one thing to know the Church’s position but it’s another thing to not accept it. My point was about the former which I view as being more basic. Can you give me a realistic scenario that shows how or why a “modern, educated, and tolerant or even civilized person” would find it hard to know about the Church’s position on same-sex acts? Can the same be said for lying, murder, adultery, etc?

 

[PetraG]

It is one thing to know the Church’s position but it’s another thing to not accept it. My point was about the former which I view as being more basic. Can you give me a realistic scenario that shows how or why a “modern, educated, and tolerant or even civilized person” would find it hard to know about the Church’s position on same-sex acts?

They would be able to know the Church’s position, but they are being misled (as if it were a question) whether or not the Church is authoritative. Consider the initial relief of being told it is not necessary to resist a strong sexual inclination and that it is instead a matter of dignity to give into it and celebrate it. Consider also that people are sometimes personally denigrated and even subjected to violence for even for having the inclination. The capacity to recognize the truth from out of all the competing falsehoods and the overarching attitude of relativism is a grace. Some do not have that grace, but Providence knows who is culpable and who is not. Those who have this inclination are living in a time when it is very difficult to remain chaste.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

They would be able to know the Church’s position, but they are being misled (as if it were a question) whether or not the Church is authoritative. Consider the initial relief of being told it is not necessary to resist a strong sexual inclination and that it is instead a matter of dignity to give into it and celebrate it. Consider also that people are sometimes personally denigrated and even subjected to violence for even for having the inclination. The capacity to recognize the truth from out of all the competing falsehoods and the overarching attitude of relativism is a grace. Some do not have that grace, but Providence knows who is culpable and who is not. Those who have this inclination are living in a time when it is very difficult to remain chaste.

I would think that establishing some knowledge opens the door for culpability. It is very clear and easily accessible to know that the Church is against same-sex acts. . I’ll leave it to Christians and God to debate about the amount of culpability for such a person who knows the predominant position, but chooses to reject it for whatever personal reason.

I also question the implications of how those who commit other sins (esp. dictators who slaughter their populations), no matter how harmful, could get away just as long as they don’t know it’s wrong or rationalize it away.

 

[PetraG]

I would think that establishing some knowledge opens the door for culpability. It is very clear and easily accessible to know that the Church is against same-sex acts. . I’ll leave it to Christians and God to debate about the amount of culpability for such a person who knows the predominant position, but chooses to reject it for whatever personal reason.

I also question the implications of how those who commit other sins (esp. dictators who slaughter their populations), no matter how harmful, could get away just as long as they don’t know it’s wrong or rationalize it away.

This is a thread about sin, though, not a thread about criminality.
We are not talking about legal culpability, as in whether or not someone would be expected to be subject to penalty from a human court. We are talking about whether someone would be facing eternal consequences for embracing a mortal sin. The standard there is that Providence alone has standing to know how to judge hearts in order to justly judge what relationship a soul has chosen to have with his or her Creator for all of eternity. Only Providence can know whether someone is to be held culpable at all, let alone how much.
For our part, we do need to caution people that the matter is grave and that the eternal consequences could therefore be grave beyond imagining. We cannot say what will happen to any particular soul, no matter how much someone wants us to say we know who will be condemned because of the particular magnitude of their wrongdoing. We also cannot say what mitigating factors will relieve someone of culpability from committing a serious sin when they were objectively seem to be capable of doing otherwise.