The Purpose of Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter SextusEmpiricus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Further, if we are to presume validity, right now my child is not born of a sinful act, but if a finding of invalidity is made it is then that my child somehow becomes born of sin?
Incidentally, if you want to talk about the Catholic concept of being “born of sin” we ought to discuss the fact that we are all “born of sin”, from the moment of our conception.

(Everyone, of course, except for Jesus and Mary.)
 
My limited reading of the Bible yields only one reference prohibiting male homosexuality in and of itself.
That may be how you present an argument for homosexual marriage to a Bible Christian, but on a Catholic Forum that is not a good way to argue.

As you ought to know, Catholics do not get their doctrines from the Bible.
 
mek42
**
My limited reading of the Bible yields only one reference prohibiting male homosexuality in and of itself.**

There are many more than one reference, so your reading of the Bible is very limited indeed.

Which reference are you aware of?
 
That may be how you present an argument for homosexual marriage to a Bible Christian, but on a Catholic Forum that is not a good way to argue.

As you ought to know, Catholics do not get their doctrines from the Bible.
Good thing I was answering a question and not arguing then.
 
Good thing I was answering a question and not arguing then.
How was saying that there’s not much in the Bible regarding prohibition of homosexuality an answer to this question:

So the question I wish to put to you Mek42 is -

Do you think same sex marriage SHOULD be done (legalised and embraced by society)? and if so why?

:confused:
 
Again, saying, “But it’s not really mentioned in the Bible” is of no use in dialogue with Catholics.
I was answering a question, explaining how I came to my thoughts. I’m sorry you feel that answering someone’s question is of no use.
 
My limited reading of the Bible yields
Hey mek42, there’s a phrase that is relevant here. It’s “Sola scriptura” which is latin for “by scripture alone.” Chances are you’ll encounter it used in these forums. It would be applied to forms of Christianity that see the bible as all that is necessary for salvation. Catholicism isn’t among these.

In addition to the Bible (note: there’s some small differences between the Catholic and Protestant bible, but that’s not important here) Catholicism makes use of “Sacred Tradition” which among other things can be handed down through living tradition and isn’t necessarily all written down within the bible. You may also want to check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church (often abbreviated CCC) to learn more.
 
In the space of one post you’ve gone from procreation being the purpose of marriage to procreation being a component, so my work here is done. As I said there has never been just one single fixed purpose to all marriages.
Marriage has largely been about **economics (**which include birth-rates) and historically about political and familial alliances.

To quote one of NOM’s ads: “Marriage has been about protecting women and children”.

In short, what marriage has not been about historically is the pleasure of the two partners involved as direct state involvement is concerned.
 
Hey mek42, there’s a phrase that is relevant here. It’s “Sola scriptura” which is latin for “by scripture alone.” Chances are you’ll encounter it used in these forums. It would be applied to forms of Christianity that see the bible as all that is necessary for salvation. Catholicism isn’t among these.

In addition to the Bible (note: there’s some small differences between the Catholic and Protestant bible, but that’s not important here) Catholicism makes use of “Sacred Tradition” which among other things can be handed down through living tradition and isn’t necessarily all written down within the bible. You may also want to check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church (often abbreviated CCC) to learn more.
👍
 
I was answering a question, explaining how I came to my thoughts. I’m sorry you feel that answering someone’s question is of no use.
It appears to be a non-sequitur, unless there was some other question you were answering?

One in which josh was asking for some Bible verses?
 
he gay community has been persecuted for so long, it is time that they have standing, that they have defenses of their own.
They do have standing and are probably over-represented in media coverage, of course, in large part so the media can help progressives get into and stay in political office.

The GLBTQ folks are heading down the vast path of being victims of false promises from the progressive elements of the elite and big government.

A gay relationship biologically and psychologically cannot be the same a healthy straight one, and selling it as such is a lie.

The American government has made false, broken promises to Native Americans and African-Americans and union workers.

GLBTQ folks are going to get caught in the same cog.

In fact, just read an article saying at how they are “surprised” at new tax burdens.

They will soon see the false promises made before them and hopefully they’ll realize who really cares about the (God and his Church) as opposed to who doesn’t (people who want votes and posterchilds for “diversity”).
 
How can it be holy if the Church considers us living in sin? I thought sin and holy were strict opposites.
I think the point is you’d be living in sin if you weren’t married.

In fact, living together before marriage actually decreases your prospects for marriage to that person.
 
Josh, your post is long, I’m not going to quote it.

Using probability theory and a dash of integral calculus I can honestly answer in the affirmative a belief in God. While I was raised Catholic, I do not self identify as Christian. More than that requires face to face or at least not my mobile.
Okay.
My limited reading of the Bible yields only one reference prohibiting male homosexuality in and of itself. This is buried somewhere in Leviticus and I am not certain offhand if it applies to gentiles. The oft quoted Sodom and Gomorrah stories are in my reading a Prohibition against rape, especially against rape hidden beneath hospitality. Culturally, the breach of the covenant of hospitality may be the bigger sin. I read no Prohibition against lesbian intercourse.
Okay. I have alot to say, please bear with me 🙂

The first thing that comes to my mind with the existance of God, is that it would seem quite clear that God created us male and female (as we didn’t evolve from nothing) and as Genesis states.

We can also refer to Matthew 19:4-6 when Jesus was teaching about divorce, he also affirmed this.
Matthew 19:4-6
4 Jesus answered, “Don’t you know that in the beginning the Creator made a man and a woman? 5 That’s why a man leaves his father and mother and gets married. He becomes like one person with his wife. 6 Then they are no longer two people, but one. And no one should separate a couple that God has joined together.”
So thus the question comes into mind, are the sexual acts of homosexuality sinful? in which following from the above it would clearly be sinful, because it means to use the bodies organs in a manner in which they were not designed to be used for.

Now it comes to advocating this kind of sexual immorality for others (same sex marriage), if we know it to be sinful, would we be loving our neighbour by advocating sexual immorality for them?

Many Christians say something like “I don’t believe in sacramental same sex marriage, but I don’t have any objections to civil same sex marriage.” However this is like me saying “As a Catholic I believe theft is immoral” and than turning around and encouraging my neighbours to steal.

SSM supporters also say “well God created homosexuals too” in which they are absolutely right, he did, he created me as well and I too as a heterosexual have many immoral desires aswell, so should we all just throw our hand up in the air, recklessly give into our every desire and say “If God didn’t want me to do this, than he wouldn’t have given me the desire to do it?”

Also when it comes to Sodom and Gomorrah. I don’t believe they were destroyed due to ONLY homosexuality as there were a whole range of other sins being commited, however homosexuality was certainly part of their immorality.

Also when it comes to Leviticus -

We all know this one -
**Leviticus 18:22
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. **
However it also say’s this -
**Leviticus 20:13
13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. **
:eek:

Now lets look at what Leviticus say’s about Adultery -
Leviticus 18:16
16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.
However it also say’s this -
Leviticus 20:10
10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
:eek:

Now lets look at how Jesus fulfills the old testament Matthew 5:17-20 here -
**John 8:3-11
3 The Pharisees and the teachers of the Law of Moses brought in a woman who had been caught in bed with a man who wasn’t her husband. They made her stand in the middle of the crowd. 4 Then they said, “Teacher, this woman was caught sleeping with a man who isn’t her husband. 5 The Law of Moses teaches that a woman like this should be stoned to death! What do you say?”

6 They asked Jesus this question, because they wanted to test him and bring some charge against him. But Jesus simply bent over and started writing on the ground with his finger.

7 They kept on asking Jesus about the woman. Finally, he stood up and said, “If any of you have never sinned, then go ahead and throw the first stone at her!” 8 Once again he bent over and began writing on the ground. 9 The people left one by one, beginning with the oldest. Finally, Jesus and the woman were there alone.

10 Jesus stood up and asked her, “Where is everyone? Isn’t there anyone left to accuse you?”

11 “No sir,” the woman answered.
Then Jesus told her, “I am not going to accuse you either. You may go now, but don’t sin anymore.”
**
The sexual acts of homosexuality should be seen likewise.

Please continue to next post -
 
Continued from above post -
I do support civil relationships between same sex folks that are legally equivalent to civil marriage.
Still do? Still think the sexual acts of homosexuality should be an embraced varient of sexuality for society?
However, I strongly oppose any external group that seeks to force any religious body to marry gays.
That’s good. 👍
Why, it is mostly equality, but also partly defense of the underdog.
Matthew 20:1-16
The gay community has been persecuted for so long, it is time that they have standing, that they have defenses of their own. That is the nutshell version.
The persecution or mistreatment of anyone is absolutely wrong, just like it was wrong for the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law of Moses to stone the Adulterer.

I think people are very clever at lumping the homosexual and the acts of homosexuality together, so when people speak against the sexual acts of homosexuality, they are taken for speaking against homosexuals, which is simply not true in many cases, If someone came here to speak against homosexuals, I would be quick to refute them.

Homosexuals are no different to any one of us, not one person doesn’t have an immoral desire.
**Galatians 3:26-29
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. **
There is also neither heterosexual nor homosexual.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
The persecution or mistreatment of anyone is absolutely wrong, just like it was wrong for the Pharisees and the teachers of the Law of Moses to stone the Adulterer.
To stone the adulterer was not wrong, but all of them have fallen well under that standard…
 
Marriage has largely been about **economics (**which include birth-rates) and historically about political and familial alliances.

To quote one of NOM’s ads: “Marriage has been about protecting women and children”.

In short, what marriage has not been about historically is the pleasure of the two partners involved as direct state involvement is concerned.
I do not think so.
Let look at the Spartan society; homosexuality was common practice in army, which included the most of the men; but they didn’t homo-marry to combine their wealth and they didn’t use slave women to make kids so to ensure “offsprings” without a wife. Why? Because a kid needs the dignity of a mother. Because no men even homosexual didn’t want to give up the dignity of a man. When you see guys speaking here about “guardians” for kids as something normal, then there is no dignity at all.
 
The truth is not the monopoly of the majority.
That doesn’t justify any belief.
What* is ***the purpose of gay marriage apart from obtaining state benefits?
In your country I believe your representatives introduced equal marriage for the purpose of equal rights.
The existence of more than one million one-parent families in the UK demonstrates how the absence of marriage and the absence of respect for marriage leads to the breakdown of the family with ensuing misery for the fathers, mothers and their children.
You think that spouses who hate each other would be less miserable if they don’t separate? There are lots of dysfunctional families, you can’t just quote some numbers and assume that all the families which don’t visibly break down are blissfully happy.
Do the purposes of a marriage depend* solely*** on whatever the spouses believe about their marriage?
Yes. You can’t dictate the purpose of your neighbor’s marriage.
***Most ***people starting out on married life hope not only to have and to hold each other but also their children…
**Most **people starting out on married life hope not only to have and to hold each other but also to get a nice house, but that doesn’t mean the purpose of marriage is to own a nice house.
 
That doesn’t justify any belief.

In your country I believe your representatives introduced equal marriage for the purpose of equal rights.

You think that spouses who hate each other would be less miserable if they don’t separate? There are lots of dysfunctional families, you can’t just quote some numbers and assume that all the families which don’t visibly break down are blissfully happy.

Yes. You can’t dictate the purpose of your neighbor’s marriage.

**Most **people starting out on married life hope not only to have and to hold each other but also to get a nice house, but that doesn’t mean the purpose of marriage is to own a nice house.
Thank you for your opinions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top