The Catholic Church is WRONG about same sex marriage

[amma]

How many formus did you post this in GayCatholic? I have found three so far. You must really want to argue your points badly. We are all sinners, but we should not try to lead each other, or support each other to sin. I will Pray for you to embrace your Catholic faith and it’s teachings.
God’s Love to you!
AMMA

 

[ecs_220]

(God created me this way, I did not CHOOSE to be gay)

Why, then, is it called a “sexual preference” by Gay-Rights advocates (just curious)?

GayCatholic:

We want the same legal rights and priviledges a man and woman get when they marry. . .

In all of human history Marriage itself has never, as far as I can see, been defined as a “right”; there have always been restrictions on just who is permitted to marry. My guess is that marriage is supposed to be re-defined, in this case, because the special-interest group demanding it tends to support “politically-correct” {ie, Left-Wing extremist) causes.

 

[Apologia100]

Just another curious point, no gay man is forbidden to marry in the US. Any gay man is free to marry, as long as his partner is a woman. So the prohibition on marriage is a futile arguement. You are allowed to marry, as long as it is within the legally excepted context. What the gay movement is trying to do is REDEFINE marriage to suit their own agenda. Here is the problem with same gender marriage. Let’s say that I own a business and my best friend, Joe, owns a business and we want to merge our business interests because they would be more valuable if they were combined. As it stands we would have to get lawyers involved and it costs quite a bit of money to merge corporations. Now enter same sex marriage. Joe and I just get married, even if we don’t “love” eachother or intend conjugal unions, because there is no law that says we have to love eachother or intend to have sex in order to get married. Now our companies are considered common property. They legally belong to both of us because we are married. We then sell the merged company for twice what they could have been sold for separately. We split the profits and arrange our “divorce”. Using the aberrant laws to make profit. If you don’t think that will happen once the floodgates open, you don’t understand the pernicious greed that runs though our society.

 

[Brad]

GayCatholic:

I NEVER CLAIMED GOD WAS WRONG. I SAID THE CHURCH IS WRONG ON THIS ISSUE. LIKE IT HAS BEEN WRONG ON MANY OTHER ISSUES AND LATER CHANGED IT’S POSITION. DON’T PRAY FOR ME, PRAY FOR THE CHURCH AND IT’S LEADERS. THEY ARE THE ONES IN NEED OF PRAYERS.

Hey friend and loved one of God made in His image and likeness:

I WILL pray for you - woe to those that think they do not need prayers - none of us are perfect brother - we all need prayers. By the way, no person in the Church is perfect but God’s truths (of which the Church is the pillar and bulwark of) are non-negotiable. Just because you do not hear homilies saying other sexual sins are wrong does not mean they are right - nor does it mean homosexual marriage is possible.

The Church is not wrong on same sex marriage - this is a moral teaching, not a scientific teaching - May God grant you wisdom and the freedom of coming to His truths through His grace and His love.

 

[ChrisR246]

Shibboleth:

The classical orthodox understanding of this verse has nothing to do with homosexuality. If these men were homosexuals, why did Lot offer his daughters? The same with Judges 19:1-30. Anyway, if they came for the same reasons you are assuming, would it have been any better if they came for a woman. Even the gay-condemning understanding of this passage is not about same-sex love, it is about gang rape. Lot understood the sacredness of a guest. That is why he offered his daughters.

If their sin was simply rape, why isn’t the word rape used elsewhere in the Bible? Why single out Sodom at all then, since rape is pretty universally understood to be wrong. I think ti’s clear that the homosexual element to it was, if not soley the offense, a significant portion.

Shibboleth:

I definitely need to study more about the positions of Catholicism.
Maybe I am confused but I thought that Catholics held that Mary never engaged in sexual relations with Joseph.

No, you are exactly correct. And the passage from Matthew is often trotted out to disprove the Catholic position. I was just pointing out that the passage only addresses the relationship between Mary and Joseph before Jesus was born. Nothing about it implies there were physical relations between them after Jeus’ birth.

 

[OhioBob]

ktm:

This whole thread has gotten totally out of hand in a matter of a few posts. Folks, please keep this to a civilized level, both in how you interact with each other and in what language you choose. There is too much explicit talk of rather disgusting behaviors. We are instructed to keep this to a level that would be appropriate for a teenage audience.

I think the “gotten totally out of hand” part was the original poster’s intent. Obviously there is an agenda at work here. If the goal was to get a rise out of the board, than he certainly succeeded. I doubt that the original post was intended to prompt thoughtful discussion about the subject.

The Church’s teaching is clear and consistent on this subject. You either hold to that teaching or you don’t.

 

[Emily_Watson]

I suggest that, if you are truly interested in what the Church teaches on the subject, that you check out the several tracts and the special report that Catholic Answers has produced. See what the Catechism says, 1613 & 1653.
God Bless

 

[Anne_Carmel]

Thank you all for the (name removed by moderator)ut. This forum is now closed.