Same-sex marraige: honestly, what is the point?

[jonathan_hili]

Same Sex Couples have been persecuted just like other minorities, through the years, we only have to look at events in Russia recently to understand, why same sex couples seek legitimacy and the protection and freedoms that that brings.

But there is a difference between seeking legitimacy and protection, and seeking state-sanctioned marriage. Christians are persecuted in some countries too (even today!) but don’t need the state to officially name Christianity as the state religion for protection. Likewise, it doesn’t follow that same-sex couples need marriage for protection.

On that point though, I wouldn’t call “same-sex couples” a minority, because they aren’t a homogeneous group.

 

[jonathan_hili]

• Decline in physical and mental health problems for gays and lesbians (meaning the state doesn’t have to pay as much to care for them)
• Reported upswing in happiness among children being raised by gays and lesbians
• Economic benefits for communities

There is evidence to support all of this. Same-sex marriage does benefit communities.

Naturally, legitimising and legalising (that is, legally controlling) certain behaviour will result in less problems for the community and those involved, but it doesn’t follow that it brings benefit, that is, moral and social good, to the community. I mean, you could argue that legalising all forms of narcotics or assassination will bring less problems, which could be understood as benefits, but it seems strange, since narcotics and assassination are by their nature not moral and social goods.

As for your other points, well, I’m not sure what the economic benefits would be. Sure, there would be economic benefits, but there would be economic benefits by legalising polygamy, etc. etc. but again, it doesn’t follow that you legalise something because of the economic benefits.

As for the happiness of children, this is problematic. Can a child truly be happy if he doesn’t know who his mother or father is, or have a relationship with them? I would also ask, how is “happiness” define in this case? And are these longitudinal studies (over 30-40 years)?

 

[imidiwan]

Hi ! my name is imidiwan i’m from morocco and i’m new catholic . i have the message from the God in dream before 15 days in i want to change my life , be another person and have new friends .
Plz contact to me i want to know more and more .
:tiphat: ow.ly/m4ILk :tiphat:

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I haven’t read all of the posts in the thread but at a quick glance I think there is one possibility overlooked: the destruction of marriage. I don’t claim that every SSM advocate is aiming to destroy the institution fo marriage but among those at the vanguard of the movement there is a definite anti-marriage agenda.

The best way to tease this apart is to ask anyone advocating SSM where the process of “evolution” will end. They generally avoid the question but you can certainly ask it and probe their thinking on the matter.

Most who advocate SSM just assume, without much thought, that a couple is a natural and just arrangement and that the traditional definition of marriage as that between a man and a woman is arbitrary and discriminatory. They presume that once society accepts homosexual couplings as marriage then the civil rights fight will be one for them.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The only question is whether people can be made to see this beforehand or only in retrospect.

 

[Slavonic]

Sexual orientation doesn’t refer to gender.

Yes it does. There is no generally accepted definition to the contrary.

This passage clearly states that God created a us male and female, that only a male and female are capable of marriage. Two men cannot become like one flesh and two women cannot either.

That passage is about divorce.

What makes these orientations so different to that of homosexuality, is the conduct wouldn’t you agree? if we were basing the morality of homosexuality based on “born that way theory” than the same would have to be applied for Paedophilia and bestiality.

‘Born This Way’ has nothing to do with it. There’s a very subtle difference that you’re missing.

This:

…the basic human anatomy of men and women and their sexual compatibility and complementarity with one another.

is a ‘Born This Way’ theory.

 

[josh987654321]

Yes it does. There is no generally accepted definition to the contrary.

Please explain.

That passage is about divorce.

Nice dodge.

So I guess what he said is irrelevant right? Tell me, if it were just about divorce, why would he say it? obviously he is going into detail on what a marriage is and yet you are ignoring it because the primary issue addressed is about divorce. If it were a same sex marriage issue he would say the same thing and address the primary issue of same sex marriage.

Matthew 19:4-6
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

This passage is very clear.

It clearly states that God created us male and female, that only male and female are capable of marriage. Two men cannot become like one flesh and two women cannot either.

The very nature of homosexuality means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they were not designed to be used for.

You are ignoring or disregarding what Christ has said in order to suit your own whim and fancy.

‘Born This Way’ has nothing to do with it. There’s a very subtle difference that you’re missing.

One question, if they legalise same sex marriage, on what ground would you refuse polygamous or incestuous marriage?

This:
is a ‘Born This Way’ theory.

No, it’s not a theory, it’s a reality. Biology 101.

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

CCC 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved**.

God Bless, I hope you will wake up to the reality of the notion of same sex marriage.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[mitex]

Church also teaches the Church must accept homosexuals with sensitivity and compassion does it not?

I mean obviously I agree that same-sex marriage is wrong, and so are homosexual acts. But many of us who are traditional but want love and compassion to play out in this debate are accused of promoting homosexuality.

Obviously the Christian Church in general should keep fighting same-sex marriage. But Cardinal Dolan is right; the Church hasn’t done that great of a job in outreach to homosexuals. Most homosexuals aren’t polygamous half naked activists dancing wildly through the streets.

Actually take it from me (I’m celibate); it’s actually a very painful existence to live through. And it doesn’t help when Churches in their good intentioned struggle to defend marriage end up ostracizing homosexuals instead.

But many people on CAF forget about this from the Catechism and it drives me crazy (I’ll dig up some of the most outlandish of the statements on this thread to prove my point):

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

 

[josh987654321]

Church also teaches the Church must accept homosexuals with sensitivity and compassion does it not?

I mean obviously I agree that same-sex marriage is wrong, and so are homosexual acts. But many of us who are traditional but want love and compassion to play out in this debate are accused of promoting homosexuality.

Obviously the Christian Church in general should keep fighting same-sex marriage. But Cardinal Dolan is right; the Church hasn’t done that great of a job in outreach to homosexuals. Most homosexuals aren’t polygamous half naked activists dancing wildly through the streets.

Actually take it from me (I’m celibate); it’s actually a very painful existence to live through. And it doesn’t help when Churches in their good intentioned struggle to defend marriage end up ostracizing homosexuals instead.

But many people on CAF forget about this from the Catechism and it drives me crazy (I’ll dig up some of the most outlandish of the statements on this thread to prove my point):

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

Is this directed at me? because I agree with what you have written 100%.

If I have forgotten about this part of the Catechism and said insensitive things towards homosexuals in opposing same sex marriage, please bring it up so I may apologise for it, because I assure you that’s something I really don’t want to do. Thank you.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Church also teaches the Church must accept homosexuals with sensitivity and compassion does it not?

I mean obviously I agree that same-sex marriage is wrong, and so are homosexual acts. But many of us who are traditional but want love and compassion to play out in this debate are accused of promoting homosexuality.

Obviously the Christian Church in general should keep fighting same-sex marriage. But Cardinal Dolan is right; the Church hasn’t done that great of a job in outreach to homosexuals. Most homosexuals aren’t polygamous half naked activists dancing wildly through the streets.

Actually take it from me (I’m celibate); it’s actually a very painful existence to live through. And it doesn’t help when Churches in their good intentioned struggle to defend marriage end up ostracizing homosexuals instead.

But many people on CAF forget about this from the Catechism and it drives me crazy (I’ll dig up some of the most outlandish of the statements on this thread to prove my point):

What do you think is the best way to not ostracize homosexuals?

 

[Astral_Hummingb]

The point is love. And love should be the only consideration that we need.

 

[mitex]

What do you think is the best way to not ostracize homosexuals?

Just be more loving. None of this requires a change in the Catholic Church’s teachings. Sometimes Christians in general get so caught up in opposition to homosexuality that they forget that we’re dealing with hurting and wounded people who have human dignity and value.

That doesn’t mean we condone same-sex marriage or homosexual acts of course.

But it does mean we’re more aware of our actions and speech on the subject. I see a lot of speaking the truth on here on this subject; actually its a very blunt truth. That’s good; but honestly there’s not a lot of love or compassion from some people with that truth. The two need to be combined. Love, and the truth must prevail.

But sometimes people get so caught up in condemnation, and legalism that we’ve forgotten how to love people especially sinners. Remember Jesus was a friend of sinners; not to the legalistic pharisees.

And of course it’d be nice if people took time to acknowledge the struggle and faithfulness of chaste homosexuals like myself out there, and clarify that the truth is not aimed at us who are already living a moral life.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Just be more loving. None of this requires a change in the Catholic Church’s teachings. Sometimes Christians in general get so caught up in opposition to homosexuality that they forget that we’re dealing with hurting and wounded people who have human dignity and value.

That doesn’t mean we condone same-sex marriage or homosexual acts of course.

But it does mean we’re more aware of our actions and speech on the subject. I see a lot of speaking the truth on here on this subject; actually its a very blunt truth. That’s good; but honestly there’s not a lot of love or compassion from some people with that truth. The two need to be combined. Love, and the truth must prevail.

But sometimes people get so caught up in condemnation, and legalism that we’ve forgotten how to love people especially sinners. Remember Jesus was a friend of sinners; not to the legalistic pharisees.

And of course it’d be nice if people took time to acknowledge the struggle and faithfulness of chaste homosexuals like myself out there, and clarify that the truth is not aimed at us who are already living a moral life.

Thanks. I wil try to apply love next time this comes up. God bless you for your strength.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Just be more loving. None of this requires a change in the Catholic Church’s teachings. Sometimes Christians in general get so caught up in opposition to homosexuality that they forget that we’re dealing with hurting and wounded people who have human dignity and value.

That doesn’t mean we condone same-sex marriage or homosexual acts of course.

But it does mean we’re more aware of our actions and speech on the subject. I see a lot of speaking the truth on here on this subject; actually its a very blunt truth. That’s good; but honestly there’s not a lot of love or compassion from some people with that truth. The two need to be combined. Love, and the truth must prevail.

But sometimes people get so caught up in condemnation, and legalism that we’ve forgotten how to love people especially sinners. Remember Jesus was a friend of sinners; not to the legalistic pharisees.

And of course it’d be nice if people took time to acknowledge the struggle and faithfulness of chaste homosexuals like myself out there, and clarify that the truth is not aimed at us who are already living a moral life.

Your sentiment is noted, but this is not the first time you dropped in a thread with the claim

But many people on CAF forget about this from the Catechism and it drives me crazy (I’ll dig up some of the most outlandish of the statements on this thread to prove my point):

Would you please cite the post or posts in this thread that can be taken to be directed at or meant to include chaste homosexuals like you? And setting aside charity altogether?

Consider a new member’s offered statement

The point is love. And love should be the only consideration that we need.

A lot of the discussion is spent on and directed to messages like it – that only love matters. Much of the discussion and admonition you read address such.

To a reader, the line of discussion in this thread is referring to those promoting one or more of the following notions

a) homosexual behavior is normal, not a sin,
b) homosexual acts in committed relations are equal to heterosexual sex between a committed / married man and woman,
c) therefore homosexuals have a right to “marry” and adopt kids

People with the above listed ideas tend to forget this is a Catholic forum and defense of Church teaching by her faithful members is to be expected. Sure, the discourse gets heated because many get on this board with an obvious agenda, sometimes with self I.D. as Catholics spouting views that are clearly not Catholic, even anti-Catholic. They come with minds that will not be changed, may engage the faithful in the forum only as provocateurs, ending debate with false assertions, e.g., to speak against homosexual acts and SS"M" is homophobic and bigoted, Catholics wish to turn the country to a theocratic state, etc. There is endless barrage aimed at undermining Church teaching.

You are to be commended for not identifying with and supporting homosexuals actively living the lifestyle and gay pride marchers. However, if you follow the general line of discussion in this thread, just where are the statements with which you find offense lumping chaste homosexuals with the sexually active, homosexuality promoting and gay pride marching kind?

There may be the occasional uncharitable comment (such posts get removed by moderators, the submitting member warned or sanctioned) but it is inaccurate to state that “many people of CAF” forget or reject the humanity of homosexuals, active and non active. Indeed they are worthy of respect and compassion but adherence to sin is not excused.
,

 

[mitex]

Just be more loving. None of this requires a change in the Catholic Church’s teachings. Sometimes Christians in general get so caught up in opposition to homosexuality that they forget that we’re dealing with hurting and wounded people who have human dignity and value.

That doesn’t mean we condone same-sex marriage or homosexual acts of course.

But it does mean we’re more aware of our actions and speech on the subject. I see a lot of speaking the truth on here on this subject; actually its a very blunt truth. That’s good; but honestly there’s not a lot of love or compassion from some people with that truth. The two need to be combined. Love, and the truth must prevail.

But sometimes people get so caught up in condemnation, and legalism that we’ve forgotten how to love people especially sinners. Remember Jesus was a friend of sinners; not to the legalistic pharisees.

And of course it’d be nice if people took time to acknowledge the struggle and faithfulness of chaste homosexuals like myself out there, and clarify that the truth is not aimed at us who are already living a moral life.

Grace I never said “love is all that matters” and that we forget about sin or same-sex marriage. As you can see above I specifically said we need to defend marriage and God’s plan for sexuality.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Grace I never said “love is all that matters” and that we forget about sin or same-sex marriage. As you can see above I specifically said we need to defend marriage and God’s plan for sexuality.

The quote on “love is all that matters” is specifically attributed not to you, but to another poster. It was to explain the usual line of discussion not bearing the kind of postings that you seem to read by “many people on CAF” who forget about the full teaching on how we are to relate to our homosexual brothers and sisters, with love, yes, but not without forsaking truth.

You have yet to point to or cite the postings that reflect uncharitable statements that refer to or include chaste homosexuals like yourself. Where is the condemnation of chaste homosexuals?

Please follow what is in fact being said by participating members in the thread, and not your editorialized version.
,

 

[Slavonic]

But I think this is where the problem lies. Certainly I agree that there may be good outcomes from same-sex relationships but this is different from answering whether it is inherently good, that is, do such relationships of their nature fulfill the human person. Again, I could use the mafia as an analogy. Someone involved in the mafia may indeed achieve some good outcomes, for example, financial stability, camaraderie, enjoying of certain pleasures, etc. but I would argue that the mafia is inherently bad in fulfilling the human person, that is, it is a lifestyle that does not promote virtues. Likewise, same-sex relationships, while they may promote some virtues, fail to do others, such as sexual complementarity, procreation, etc.

Of course, a Christian in particular (which I suppose you are) could argue much more strongly on same-sex relationships defying God’s ordained order, which Christianity has always held.

The relationship is what matters to me, not the gender of the partners. A gay couple and a straight couple have the same type of relationship. They both fulfill the human person. They are both inherently good.

I do not see how being heterosexual is virtuous, it is merely neutral. Procreation may be virtuous, but failure no procreate is not virtuous in and of itself.

As far is order is concerned, when one finds a problem with the theory does one attack the exception, or rethink the order itself?

 

[josh987654321]

The relationship is what matters to me, not the gender of the partners.

How about the number? or age? or family relations?

As far as order is concerned, when one finds a problem with the theory, does one attack the exception, or rethink the order itself?

This is something I thought someone opposing same sex marriage would write. What on earth do you think the order of marriage is? it’s same sex marriage advocates that are trying to rethink the order.

Slavonic, please stop advocating same sex marriage, you may be trying to help, but advocating sexual immorality is not the way to go about it, why do you think marriage has been defined between a man and a woman in the first place? Our society may have more knowledge than previous generations, but don’t make the mistake of thinking we have more wisdom too.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[jonathan_hili]

The relationship is what matters to me, not the gender of the partners. A gay couple and a straight couple have the same type of relationship. They both fulfill the human person. They are both inherently good.

I agree that relationships are important, Slavonic, but this cannot be the sole or even primary factor in such a case. Differences in being are important too, which, as a Christian in a relationship with God, you surely appreciate.

In fact, a gay couple and straight couple do not have the same type of relationship, one obvious difference is that a gay couple is by nature infertile. However, I’m not sure what you mean by type of relationship. You mean “sexual”? Or that they “both fulfill the human person”? The problem with the latter is that this cannot be the case. If a human being, whose one fundamental means of fulfillment is through procreation, cannot procreate through a particular relationship, then that relationship cannot by nature be fulfilling.

I do not see how being heterosexual is virtuous, it is merely neutral. Procreation may be virtuous, but failure no procreate is not virtuous in and of itself. As far is order is concerned, when one finds a problem with the theory does one attack the exception, or rethink the order itself?

Being heterosexual is not virtuous, but engaging in certain heterosexual acts in the correct context (e.g. a husband and wife making love) is virtuous. Nobody is saying that being homosexual (that is, having a homosexual inclination) is not virtuous but engaging in homosexual activity.

Sure, failure to procreate is not vicious in itself but deliberately frustrating procreation by having homosexual sex is vicious (that is, an act of vice).

With regards to God’s order, it really depends on the exception. I wouldn’t rethink the order simply because of exceptions, or else, one would have to say that since Jesus and Mary were without sin, then it is very possible that many people could be without sin, which contradicts Scripture and the witness of the Church.

If the exception goes against the constant teaching and witness of the Church and Scriptures for thousands of years, I would say that the exception is the problem.

As a Christian, do you value the teaching authority of the Church?

 

[Felasco]

Here’s an attempt to understand why the gay community wishes to have the right to be legally married, in the same way the rest of us are.

It’s an indisputable fact that millions of gay people have been abused and oppressed for centuries, resulting in a great deal of unjust suffering.

Gays have been denied jobs and housing, and civil rights we straight people claim for ourselves. They’ve been insulted, mocked, slandered, black mailed, beat up on the streets, and sometimes murdered, simply because they were gay.

Any population that has suffered such repression over such a long period would understandably be looking to the dominant culture for evidence that such a long standing pattern of abuse is really at an end.

I believe this is what lies at the heart of activism on the gay marriage issue.

It should be added that it’s not only gays who hope to see such evidence that this pattern of abusing gays is really over.

Many straight people, including many Christians, also find this longstanding pattern of abuse of a traditional victim population to be completely unacceptable, and thus hope to codify a fully equal status for gay persons in to law.

 

[josh987654321]

Here’s an attempt to understand why the gay community wishes to have the right to be legally married, in the same way the rest of us are.

It’s an indisputable fact that millions of gay people have been abused and oppressed for centuries, resulting in a great deal of unjust suffering.

Gays have been denied jobs and housing, and civil rights we straight people claim for ourselves. They’ve been insulted, mocked, slandered, black mailed, beat up on the streets, and sometimes murdered, simply because they were gay.

Any population that has suffered such repression over such a long period would understandably be looking to the dominant culture for evidence that such a long standing pattern of abuse is really at an end.

I believe this is what lies at the heart of activism on the gay marriage issue.

It should be added that it’s not only gays who hope to see such evidence that this pattern of abusing gays is really over.

Many straight people, including many Christians, also find this longstanding pattern of abuse of a traditional victim population to be completely unacceptable,

In fact all Christians should. I find the mistreatment of any person to be completely unacceptable, so I absolutely agree, I’d be quick to refute anyone who didn’t agree.

and thus hope to codify a fully equal status for gay persons in to law.

That’s odd … fully equal? how do we make a homosexual union and a heterosexual union fully equal? How do we make homosexuality and heterosexuality fully equal?

How do we make the difference in the human anatomy of men and women, their sexual compatibility and complementarity with one another irrelevant to marriage? and if we can do that with gender, why can’t we do it with the number too?

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh