"What Is Wrong With Homosexual Marriage?" A Catholic article

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
QwertyGirl said:
Still works just fine.

I realize what the Catholic argument is against it, but I am baffled that people are debating this as though this next frontier doesn’t exist.
Click to expand...
Sure, and there are tons of other arguments for and against if looked at through other lenses.

I’m just saying that the above is the best argument one can make if appealing to scientific reason.

The problem is that if the political situation is such that 1. all people are created equal and 2. there shall be no state religion, then as a matter of public policy, there’s no good argument for preventing the legalization of homosexual marriage. It shouldn’t have been illegal in the first place.

Logically, the best recourse I’ve seen for someone who doesn’t want to see “the gays” marry is that the government must eliminate policy that bases itself upon the concept of marriage.

That’s all.
 
Last edited:
Gay marriage goes against nature. Im not talking about God or religion. Just nature. Animals don’t show this behavior. We are made to procreate, just like animals. To pass on our genes. That’s why being gay goes against the natural order. I have no issues against gay people or marriage. Everyone deserves to be happy.
 
Who decided that is the purpose for all of human existence? Maybe that is the purpose for the majority of human existence. Maybe it isn’t the purpose for all. What does the Catholic Church base this teaching on? How does it know with 100% certainty that procreation is the purpose for the existence of each of us? Maybe God has made us so that some of us have another purpose.
 
Last edited:
A perfect solution would roughly resemble dependency exemptions and head of household exemptions being equal (so put as many people on your tax return as you want as long as they share residence) and there’s no such thing as “marital property”. Titles that indicate joint ownership would have to indicate percentage of ownership of each member and any related transactions would require an updated title.

The county clerks would get a little busier… 🙂
 
QwertyGirl said:
Who decided that is the purpose for aall of human existence?
Click to expand...
God and He revealed this to us through Scripture and the Church.
QwertyGirl said:
How does it know with 100% certainty that procreation is the purpose for the existence of each of us?
Click to expand...
Through divine revelation, in the book of Genesis, He said to be fruitful and multiply.
QwertyGirl said:
Maybe that is the purpose for the majority of human existence. Maybe it isn’t the purpose for all.
Click to expand...
QwertyGirl said:
Maybe God has made us so that some of us have another purpose.
Click to expand...
Yes in a way, but it isn’t that our bodies have a different purpose but that we sacrifice that purpose for God, such as those who choose to be priests or sisters.
 
Last edited:
Apache75 said:
Animals don’t show this behavior. We are made to procreate, just like animals. To pass on our genes. That’s why being gay goes against the natural order. I have no issues against gay people or marriage. Everyone deserves to be happy.
Click to expand...
Animals do engage in homosexual behavior.
 
Other than saying it is what Catholics have faith in and believe, there doesn’t seem to be any substantiation for the Church’s teachings. There certainly isn’t any unbiased substantiation for the points made by the author of the article posted by OP.
 
Last edited:
Divine revelation, God has revealed this to the Church through Scripture and Tradition.
 
Yes. I understand that is what you believe. You are free to believe that. Most people don’t believe it. The author of the article posted by OP undoubtedly believes it. It doesn’t make it “so”, though.

I understand the Church’s teaching on this issue. I understand it very well. What I object to is an article like the one OP posted, outlining the “evils” of gay marriage and the families that result from such a union as if it is anything other than an opinion. That is all it is (an opinion). It isn’t fact.

Obviously, it was posted in a Catholic publication, so that is fine. But for it to be cross posted in this forum for us to discuss, you need to do better than to give the memorized line of “Divine revelation…scripture…tradition”. I think people here are looking for more.
 
Last edited:
Yes it would be difficult to accept if you are not a Christian Catholic. Then no matter what the Church says you would see it as opinion. You would first need to come to understand why God gave us the Church and that is to guide us in to all truth.
 
That is true. God will not force anyone to love Him. A priest will not be pounding on your door if you miss Mass on Sunday. We have free will.

From the National Catholic Register:

However, the 2002 “Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life” by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, called on Catholics “to reject, as injurious to democratic life, a conception of pluralism that reflects moral relativism.”
 
It’s a fairly modern idea, born out of the Enlightenment, that Divine Revelation and natural law can’t be used as arguments for a discussion like this. It’s not a new frontier, it’s actually a de-evolution in critical thinking to believe that only what can be measured or observed ‘scientifically’ is true.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
Yes it would be difficult to accept if you are not a Christian Catholic. Then no matter what the Church says you would see it as opinion. You would first need to come to understand why God gave us the Church and that is to guide us in to all truth.
Click to expand...
That is correct. Perhaps I should have refrained from posting at all, but I found the article originally posted by OP is just full of assumption, presumption, misinformation, and real ignorance. The assertions are not based in any kind of fact. In short, it is hurtful and offensive to anyone who has ever loved a gay couple and their family.
 
0331 said:
It’s not a new frontier,
Click to expand...
My reference to a new frontier in my previous post pertained to “artificial” means of pro-creation. Artificial insemination, surrogacy, IVF, etc…
 
Last edited:
It is a mistake and presumptuous on your part to think that just because we stand with Church teaching on marriage and the family, we don’t love people who live against those teachings.

You can love someone and still not agree with their lifestyle and the way they live. This can be proven not only with Divine Revelation, but with my own experience.
 
Judging the quality of another couples love is not a loving thing to do. I don’t judge how fully you may or may not love a gay couple who are married. That is up to you. What I will tell you is that the article is not one that demonstrates an understanding (on the author’s part) of what a true loving homosexual relationship, replete with children, is all about.
 
The author of the article did. He opined that true love cannot be found in a homosexual relationship.
 
According to the definition given, he is right.

‘Love: To will the good of the other.’

Of course, in this definition we follow Church teaching that same-sex actions are sinful. To love someone this way would be to will them NOT to sin, to will them to seek and do the Good.

Now, if you follow the idea that Sin may change according to human progress; that truth, beauty and goodness are relative to the zeitgeist or not real at all, then of course you won’t accept the definition of Love.

‘First of all, we need to define what love really is. Love = choosing what is best for the other despite the cost to myself. If we truly want what is best for another person, then we would never advocate same-sex marriage, because it takes a risk with another person in every realm of their life – mentally, socially, spiritually, physically, etc. Same-sex marriage and homosexual sex is not real love. While we may have true feelings for another, we cannot truly love them according to the definition above.‘
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top