Same-sex marriage and why it is wrong

[Homerun40968]

Marriage has always been, since its origin, a religious sacrament of holy matrimony between a man and a woman. This practice takes place as a strengthening bond between the couple and God. This is not a matter of what you believe, but what marriage actually IS. Just as Holy Communion IS a Christian practice and Passover IS a Jewish practice, marriage IS a religious practice. It has nothing to do with individual beliefs. This is the single most common refutation, “Well, I don’t belong to the same religion as you do, so I don’t believe marriage has to be between a man and a woman.” It does not matter - marriage is religious in origin, and to get “married” in a form that God does not allow in any of the Abrahamic religions or Eastern religions, the couple would be committing heresy and grave sin.

Although not ideal, legal bonds would be fine. The same-sex couple would not be getting married in the eyes of God, but would be “legally bonded” in the eyes of the American judicial system. Not perfect, but a okay solution for a major political issue.

 

[9Choirs]

Do we really need another thread such as this, when there are enough threads discussing this topic already?

Ave Maria

9Choirs

 

[ElizabethAnne]

Homerun,

Marriage is not just a religious sacrament. It is a natural institution as well. Even in the Catholic Church a Catholic can marry an unbaptized person and have a natural, not sacramental marriage. Marriage and family life are good for society and therefore the government has granted certain privileges that go along with it.

Arguing that marriage is only religious practice does a disservice to everyone seeks to explain in a secular way that same-sex unions are not part of Natural Law and not in the best interest of society.

God bless you.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Homerun,

Marriage is not just a religious sacrament. It is a natural institution as well. Even in the Catholic Church a Catholic can marry an unbaptized person and have a natural, not sacramental marriage. Marriage and family life are good for society and therefore the government has granted certain privileges that go along with it.

Arguing that marriage is only religious practice does a disservice to everyone seeks to explain in a secular way that same-sex unions are not part of Natural Law and not in the best interest of society.

God bless you.

Okay, the few who have to have it called religion/marriage can do so, and everyone else in the universe will call our unions civil unions. I fail to see what it matters to anyone, as long as you got what you intend.

 

[Des]

Although not ideal, legal bonds would be fine. The same-sex couple would not be getting married in the eyes of God, but would be “legally bonded” in the eyes of the American judicial system. Not perfect, but a okay solution for a major political issue.

It opens the door wide for other marriages such as polygamy or incestuous marriages. One cannot say "I’m for homosexual unions so long as it’s legal in the Justice system or does not hurt anybody yet be against polygamy. That would be hypocritical of them since they have ‘no right’ to tell any other person with a free will how they so choose to be married if they decide they have ‘no right’ to tell a gay couple the same thing. Not all who practice polygamy are being hurt. Many are actually quite happy about it. Yes even the woman. So if you vote for gay ‘civil’ relationships, be prepared to vote for polygamy down the road or you may just as well call yourself a hypocrite.

 

[Steve40]

Marriage has always been, since its origin, a religious sacrament of holy matrimony between a man and a woman. This practice takes place as a strengthening bond between the couple and God. This is not a matter of what you believe, but what marriage actually IS. Just as Holy Communion IS a Christian practice and Passover IS a Jewish practice, marriage IS a religious practice. It has nothing to do with individual beliefs. This is the single most common refutation, “Well, I don’t belong to the same religion as you do, so I don’t believe marriage has to be between a man and a woman.” It does not matter - marriage is religious in origin, and to get “married” in a form that God does not allow in any of the Abrahamic religions or Eastern religions, the couple would be committing heresy and grave sin.

Although not ideal, legal bonds would be fine. The same-sex couple would not be getting married in the eyes of God, but would be “legally bonded” in the eyes of the American judicial system. Not perfect, but a okay solution for a major political issue.

The meaning of marriage in a natural law sense has it’s fulfillment in sex, the consummation if you will. This is when the two become one flesh and the natural result is intended to be totally self giving to the point of God at times giving the gift of life.

Government sanctioned homosexual sex degrades all humanity in that it degrades where humanity comes from, the God designed sexual act, the self giving sexual act between a husband and wife who love and cherish each other.

Aside from all this the endorsement of homosexual marriage and in so doing endorsing homosexual sex is a great injustice to the homosexual who suffers from same sex attraction. The reality of love and marriage goes way beyond physical attraction. If the depth of love in marriage does not go beyond physical attraction it will not survive. Our perverted society tells all including the homosexual that physical attraction and physical self gratification is the most important part of sex. This is a bald face lie and a lie that is reinforced by endorsing same sex marriage. Those who suffer from same sex attraction can marry a person of the opposite sex and not rely upon physical attraction for their self giving love. The compensation needed for the disability may prove to be a blessing as they truly totally give them self to their opposite sex spouse.

 

[Lampo]

Fr. Vincent Serpa sums it up nicely.

The union of two members of the same sex is simply not marriage. To say that it is, leaves the union that marriage has always been without a word to identify it.

If we begin to assign the word “cat” to dogs, we are left without a word to describe that small feline that people have for pets.

Further, changing the name of a thing does not change the nature of what that thing is. A rose by any other name is still a rose. The relationship of two people of the same sex will always be that—regardless of what one calls it. It will never ever be the union of two persons whose individual sexualities complement and complete each other in every way. Only marriage is that. We are talking honesty here. To say that two different things are the same is simply not the truth!

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

 

[Crow]

Fr. Vincent Serpa is correct 100%.

It is simply homosexuals lying to themselves to claim they can be married.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Marriage was also about property if you want to play historian. Tribes were joined, kingdoms were united, treaties were made-all due to the “marriage” of one family to another. There have even been corporate “marriages” to join one company to another. . If the parties involved were lucky, they were the same age-but there certainly were more than a few child brides married off to older tribesmen or nobleman that could be twice their age.

Don’t support gay marriage if you don’t agree with it. But let’s not cherry pick history to say that marriage has always been about the sacred bond between people. Very often in history it was nothing more than a contract having more to do with economics or power-and some of those marriages were even performed by Catholic clergy knowing full well what they were doing.

Marriage can be a sacred union, a civil union, a business partnership or a contract. It depends on the beliefs of the individuals involved.

 

[Steve40]

Marriage was also about property if you want to play historian. Tribes were joined, kingdoms were united, treaties were made-all due to the “marriage” of one family to another. There have even been corporate “marriages” to join one company to another. . If the parties involved were lucky, they were the same age-but there certainly were more than a few child brides married off to older tribesmen or nobleman that could be twice their age.

Don’t support gay marriage if you don’t agree with it. But let’s not cherry pick history to say that marriage has always been about the sacred bond between people. Very often in history it was nothing more than a contract having more to do with economics or power-and some of those marriages were even performed by Catholic clergy knowing full well what they were doing.

Marriage can be a sacred union, a civil union, a business partnership or a contract. It depends on the beliefs of the individuals involved.

I the case of marriage between a man and a women they have parts that fit even if they didn’t have the best intentions.

It is unhealthy (Edited). Same sex marriage encourages this unhealthy activity.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I the case of marriage between a man and a women they have parts that fit even if they didn’t have the best intentions.

It is unhealthy for man to put his penus in anyone’s rectum. Same sex marriage encourages this unhealthy activity.

did that give you some kind of special thrill to write??

and whether it’s unhealthy or not is debatable. It’s a sin according to the Church, but that’s as far as we can go in absolutes.

 

[Swan]

Okay, the few who have to have it called religion/marriage can do so, and everyone else in the universe will call our unions civil unions. I fail to see what it matters to anyone, as long as you got what you intend.

Ain’t that the truth! Too bad this seems to be more than some folks can grasp.

 

[brockmac]

I remember just a few years ago, when the issue was sodomy laws, the argument from the gay community was that they wanted the government out of their bedrooms. Since then the courts have struck down sodomy laws, citing a right to privacy.

Now that they have won that battle, they suddenly want the government to formally recognize their relationships. In other words they want the government in their bedrooms to in essence endorse and legitimize their unorthodox unions.

As Fr. Vincent stated earlier, calling something a marriage, does not make it one. Language is important. We should not go about changing the meaning of words willy nilly.

Additionally, in my opinion, which I believe to be in union with the teachings of Holy Mother Church, the idea of the state formally sanctioning same sex unions, whether they are cal,led marriage or civil unions, is ill advised, as it gives official government sanction to something that is intrinsically immoral.

 

[Dale_M]

Fr. Vincent Serpa is correct 100%.

I’d say he was 50% correct. Yes, we have had a terrible problem in the US (and perhaps other nations) of calling two different things by the same name - “marriage”. One thing is a civil union between two people, blessed by the state, and granting legal benefits. The other is a sacramental union, blessed by the Church, and granting spiritual benefits.

Fr Vincent, however, doesn’t offer a solution to this vexing dilemma of calling two very different things by the same name. I think it is long overdue that we stopped calling civil “marriages” by that name. They are, and should be called, civil unions.

 

[Steve40]

I the case of marriage between a man and a women they have parts that fit even if they didn’t have the best intentions.

It is unhealthy (Edited). Same sex marriage encourages this unhealthy activity.

I’m not sure why my post was edited but it is important to explicitly discuss sodomy when discussing homosexual marriage. Because homosexual marriage goes outside the cultural norm our language and discussion must be able to go outside the cultural norm as well. This is no time for squeemishness when confronting this issue. I believe it is necessary to meeting people culturally in the mud during a discussion of homosexual marriage because that is where they are.

 

[ParamountWonder]

2 words: “Free Will”

i am not saying I like it lol, but its where that argument ends and anything further would only escalate the impending problem…

 

[Steve40]

2 words: “Free Will”

i am not saying I like it lol, but its where that argument ends and anything further would only escalate the impending problem…

I don’t think same-sex marriage is wrong because of free will. Free will allows it, but it is wrong in and of itself even if we didn’t have free will. Such as, there may not be free will in Hell and those of the same sex may be forced to marry under the authority of Satan. This would still be wrong.

 

[Steve40]

2 words: “Free Will”

i am not saying I like it lol, but its where that argument ends and anything further would only escalate the impending problem…

Are you saying that free will makes same sex marriage alright? In my previous post I may have misunderstood. If you don’t believe in objective reality I can understand your position. Culturally our society believes in relative morality not objective morality. In other words something may not be moral for me, but it may be moral for someone else like two men that want to …whatever. If I finished this sentence it would get edited by the forum castopo.

Moral relativism has it’s roots in a misunderstanding of subjective sin and objective sin. The subjectivity of an imoral action and the person’s cupability in the action does depend upon the circumstances and for this reason it is important not to judge the individual. Only God can judge the heart. However, perhaps because of this our society tends to overlook objective sin/objective morality, which is based in objective truth. In otherwords as one of my friends from Tennessee would put it “It doesn’t mater how the mule got in the ditch, the fact is the mule is in the ditch and you have to get him out.” The objective reality is that the mule is in the ditch or those in a same sex, sexual relationships are in a pit and we are obligated to encourage them and help them get out. Their free will may have got them in the ditch but it will never take away from the reality that they are in that deep pit.

 

[Dale_M]

I’m not sure why my post was edited but it is important to explicitly discuss sodomy when discussing homosexual marriage.

Steve, I am not sure why you think it is important to discuss sodomy when considering same-sex marriage. First of all, less than half of homosexuals engage in sodomy. Second, and more importantly, there is no reason to think that gay marriage would increase the incidence of sodomy. If someone is going to do it, why would they wait until they get married?

 

[ParamountWonder]

how are they obligated by a being in which does not force us to do anything? it is not wrong from a logical or religious standpoint. simply a arrogant and personal interest one. Regardless of what something says, if something is possible there is no legitimate doctrine that can force it to be wrong lol…