Why do gays want marriage? What do they hope gain from it?

[Elric]

What is terrible about abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and euthanasia should be obvious: they are the deliberate destruction of human beings. (Thou shalt not kill and all that.)

That doesn’t necessarily make them wrong.

Advocacy for same-sex marriage stems from a confusion about marriage and sexuality. (Same-sex couples cannot make a marriage and homosexual acts are depraved and harm those who perform them.)

You have a lot of assertions there, but nothing to support them and you don’t really answer the question.

The use of artificial contraception is wrong in itself and the widespread use of it has so decayed normal moral thinking

So contraception is wrong because you say so?

I’m not following.

----the only reason many people NOW think same-sex marriage is fine is that they’ve been using contraceptives all their lives and think sex has nothing to do with children (-unless, you know, you happen to be into the whole biological family thing)

Maybe a reason that people now think same sex marriage is fine is because they figured out that it is unjust not to let them marry. Perhaps it has less to do with contraception and more to do with concepts like human rights and morality than you think.

— that people a) think abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and euthanasia are fine and b) that they know this because they’re so morally astute, not like that backward old Church.

I’m not sure what you are saying here. If you are saying that people can be more moral than the church, I would have to agree.

I actually have more respect for people who say, “Hey, I don’t CARE if abortion is murder, I don’t want a kid” than I do for people who argue that it is not only moral, but, you know, Catholic!

Well according to Mosaic law, abortion wasn’t considered murder.

I don’t think that most people are OK with the practice, they would prefer to be in a society where people didn’t feel that abortion was an option for them where such a procedure was not necessary.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Maybe a reason that people now think same sex marriage is fine is because they figured out that it is unjust not to let them marry. Perhaps it has less to do with contraception and more to do with concepts like human rights and morality than you think.

Precisely.

 

[Elric]

What parts of ‘marriage is a Holy Sacrament’ and ‘sex between two people of the same gender is gravely disordered’ don’t you get?

Which part?

Well marriage has never been the exclusive institution of the church for starters.

According to who is ‘sex between two people of the same gender is gravely disordered’?

 

[catholicguy25]

Hi
I’m a new member
interesting thread

as a catholic i love gays, we all are sinners and Jesus told us to love one another, however, i just can’t support gay marriages. As other posters have mentioned, gay marriage doesn’t produce offspring… And besides, once gay marriage is totally legalized, then people will ask for the legalization of incest…People who are in favor of gay marriages argue that such unions should be legal because we are talking about two consenting adults… Well, in the same way a 20 year old woman could argue that nobody has a right to tell her that she doesn’t have a right to marry her grandfather… And such union would produce offspring, but we know that incest causes the offspring to be born physically and psychologically deformed.

 

[Julia_Mae]

And besides, once gay marriage is totally legalized, then people will ask for the legalization of incest…

I’ve never seen a bit of evidence to support this. Do you know of some “incestsexual” group that would lobby for that? Why do you think this might happen?

Well, in the same way a 20 year old woman could argue that nobody has a right to tell her that she doesn’t have a right to marry her grandfather… And such union would produce offspring, but we know that incest causes the offspring to be born physically and psychologically deformed.

Heterosexual couples aren’t allowed in some states to marry each other, either. A woman usually cannot marry her son. Those laws are separate from the issue of the gender of the couple.

Second, close family members having children, doesn’t necessarily cause anything bad at all. Many completely normal children have been born to close relatives who married. But, it does make it more likely that two recessive genes will be passed on that can carry a trait like hemophilia.

Third, you cannot deny rights to a group based on the idea that maybe that could possibly lead to someone else doing something you don’t like.

 

[Faithdancer]

If newcomers to a 19 page thread can’t be bothered to research the previous 18 pages and figure out what is being discussed, I don’t think anyone else should feel obligated to explain it to them. (Hint: not referring to catholicguy25).

 

[Elizabeth502]

What parts of ‘marriage is a Holy Sacrament’ and ‘sex between two people of the same gender is gravely disordered’ don’t you get?

And what part of this does she not get, Faith? This is one of the many compilations of statements from her collective U.S. bishops on the subject:

marriageuniqueforareason.org

Not to mention the statements from the Vatican itself on how both the falsity of “marriage” between those of the same gender, and the similar deception of same-sex “unions” are fundamentally opposed to essential and absolute Catholic doctrine. There is no middle ground on this, no caving in to populist secular slogans and gross misinterpretations of the role of the State (not the Church) in conferring the privilege of marriage to “couples” who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be defined as marriageable to each other.

 

[Faithdancer]

And what part of this does she not get, Faith? This is one of the many compilations of statements from her collective U.S. bishops on the subject:

marriageuniqueforareason.org

Not to mention the statements from the Vatican itself on how both the falsity of “marriage” between those of the same gender, and the similar deception of same-sex “unions” are fundamentally opposed to essential and absolute Catholic doctrine. There is no middle ground on this, no caving in to populist secular slogans and gross misinterpretations of the role of the State (not the Church) in conferring the privilege of marriage to “couples” who cannot by any stretch of the imagination be defined as marriageable to each other.

**"Definitions

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines these three sins against the faith in this way:
2089** Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same".

from ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

Incredulity is the more general category under which the sins of heresy, apostasy, and schism fall. I did not include the definitions of apostasy and schism.

And I couldn’t help but notice the irony that the welcome message on the USCCB site is from the Archbishop-designate of San Francisco, who is also chairman of the USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage.

 

[BobCatholic]

Bob, Catholic Charities had a grant and contract with the Federal government to handle the adoptions. Maybe the contract was with the state, but the money was Federal Grant money. They list it in their 990s. When they wouldn’t comply, the Feds took back the money. Catholic Charities had most of their funding from government grants, like over 60%. That’s how they managed to do the adoption service program.

Now - if Catholic Charities had the money to run adoption services of it’s own and serviced only Catholics, the government would have no say in whether or not they gave children to gay people.

That’s why I talk about the money, because the grant money was the issue that closed them. Yes, they refused to comply. Then they lost their grant. So they stopped.

Seriously, do you even bother reading what I wrote?

I was NOT talking about federal funding! The links I posted had NOTHING to do with federal funding or federal government.

The state passed a law. Then told Catholic Charities to comply with the law or not be allowed.

This had NOTHING to do with federal funding.

Please actually READ what I’m writing. You are talking about something completely different, and I think you’re doing this on purpose to avoid talking about the actual issue.

Maybe you like the idea of the state taking away first amendment rights.
edit: After reading more of your posts, that is abundantly clear there is no “maybe” - you do like that idea!

 

[Faithdancer]

Seriously, do you even bother reading what I wrote?

I was NOT talking about federal funding! The links I posted had NOTHING to do with federal funding or federal government.

The state passed a law. Then told Catholic Charities to comply with the law or not be allowed.

This had NOTHING to do with federal funding.

Please actually READ what I’m writing. You are talking about something completely different, and I think you’re doing this on purpose to avoid talking about the actual issue.

Maybe you like the idea of the state taking away first amendment rights.
edit: After reading more of your posts, that is abundantly clear there is no “maybe” - you do like that idea!

Like falling down a rabbit hole, eh Bob?

 

[Elric]

If newcomers to a 19 page thread can’t be bothered to research the previous 18 pages and figure out what is being discussed, I don’t think anyone else should feel obligated to explain it to them. (Hint: not referring to catholicguy25).

Was that a shot at me?

 

[Faithdancer]

Was that a shot at me?

Not a shot, and no offense intended. But this thread is going beyond 20 pages now. And to debate within Catholic theology, one needs a minimum grounding in the subject, which a perusal of the entire thread may afford, provided one has an open minded appreciation of the subject.

 

[Elric]

Hi
I’m a new member
interesting thread

as a catholic i love gays, we all are sinners and Jesus told us to love one another, however, i just can’t support gay marriages. As other posters have mentioned, gay marriage doesn’t produce offspring… And besides, once gay marriage is totally legalized, then people will ask for the legalization of incest

Producing offspring has very little to do with marriage. Offspring are produced without marriage all the time and people get married and produce no offspring all the time, so that argument really bears no weight.

The incest claim inaccurate, you cant put homosexuality and incest together because they are not the same.

…People who are in favor of gay marriages argue that such unions should be legal because we are talking about two consenting adults… Well, in the same way a 20 year old woman could argue that nobody has a right to tell her that she doesn’t have a right to marry her grandfather… And such union would produce offspring, but we know that incest causes the offspring to be born physically and psychologically deformed.

The comparison isn’t accurate, bringing incest into the argument is a tactic designed to muddy the waters and encourage fear/paranoia in people. It is a completely baseless argument.

 

[Elric]

Not a shot, and no offense intended. But this thread is going beyond 20 pages now. And to debate within Catholic theology, one needs a minimum grounding in the subject, which a perusal of the entire thread may afford, provided one has an open minded appreciation of the subject.

OK.

To re-answer your question:

“What parts of ‘marriage is a Holy Sacrament’ and ‘sex between two people of the same gender is gravely disordered’ don’t you get?”

Marriage has never been the exclusive institution of the church. It was around before the church existed, it has existed in cultures that had no connection to the church and even today people marry outside of the church. The church does not and never has has exclusive rights to marriage and to some extent who could get married.

The second part the ‘gravely disordered’ bit well from the research that has been done (serious research only started in the 1950’s), doesn’t support the assertion you have made.

So I would have to say that I don’t get any of the question because they appear to be unsupported assertions.

 

[markeverett49]

No, it doesn’t. I’m sorry, but just because you believe this with all your heart, it’s just totally untrue and all you have to do is look at the reasons people do advocate for it.

I am, believe me, completely clear on marriage and sexuality as per the Catholic Church. My advocacy for SSM is based on nothing contrary to those teachings. So, you are wrong.

I never said I believed this with all my heart. I said it was true. It was true before I was born, it will be true after I’m dead. It has NOTHING to do with me or my feelings, period. (Or you and your feelings, for that matter.)

Actually, no, I don’t believe you. I don’t believe that a) you are “completely clear” on the Church’s teaching AND b) opposed to it, YET c) your view is in no way contrary to Church teaching.

 

[marianne_king]

why do heterosexuals want to marry? Figure that out and you’ll have your answer.

 

[markeverett49]

Marriage has never been the exclusive institution of the church. It was around before the church existed, it has existed in cultures that had no connection to the church and even today people marry outside of the church.

The second part the ‘gravely disordered’ bit well from the research that has been done (serious research only started in the 1950’s), doesn’t support the assertion you have made.

Yes, marriage is older than the church. We are a sexually reproducing species and human offspring need YEARS of support and supervision after birth. Marriage and family are a good way to see to this. One need not be religious to see that.

As for the research you allude do, you are mistaken. No one is doing research into whether homosexual acts are disordered. The knowledge that homosexual acts are disordered stems from an understanding of what a human being is and what is good for him.

 

[marianne_king]

No, it doesn’t. I’m sorry, but just because you believe this with all your heart, it’s just totally untrue and all you have to do is look at the reasons people do advocate for it.

I am, believe me, completely clear on marriage and sexuality as per the Catholic Church. My advocacy for SSM is based on nothing contrary to those teachings. So, you are wrong.

Last night I lurked on this forum, and I found your posts very ‘CHRISTIAN’ …if not Catholic. I don’t care if Gays marry (other Gays) or not, but I do know some SSCs and they’re exactly like DSCs …not nearly as as bizaare and interesting as some on this forum seem to think.
The Catholic Church is starting this campaign against the Gay community, trying to inhibit their rights to have their lives enhanced by marriage by saying that it’s likely that some Gay couple will come along and sue the Church because some priest refused to marry them.
While that is very UNLIKELY to happen, I wonder why the Church doesn’t feel up to handling such a lawsuit. There are plenty of Catholic lawyers who, I am sure would step up to the plate, but here’s my question for you, IF such a thing DID happen would the lawyers have to be experts in both Canon Law AND State Law, do you think?
On another note, since the most recent lawsuits that I’ve read about concerned what I would call the MOST evil and unnatural acts possible…I’m curious about the lawyers who handled those lawsuits for the church, were they Catholic, or just good Americans who believed in the Constitution.
Finally, I was invited to join Mensa myself, but I decided not to because it seemed to smack too much of vanity.

 

[Bradski]

why do heterosexuals want to marry? Figure that out and you’ll have your answer.

Unfortunately you’ll have at least one person saying that marriage is for making babies. And then point out that gay people can’t make babies on their own.

Then you’ll point out that old people and those with traumatic injuries can’t go through the motions of making babies either.

The discussion may then head off in a slightly different direction depending on whether the person is comfortable in pointing out that the Catholic church doesn’t want those sort of people getting married either.

 

[Elric]

Yes, marriage is older than the church. We are a sexually reproducing species and human offspring need YEARS of support and supervision after birth. Marriage and family are a good way to see to this. One need not be religious to see that.

I’m not actually sure what you are getting at. I was responding to a question, you don’t seem to be following that.

As for the research you allude do, you are mistaken. No one is doing research into whether homosexual acts are disordered.

No I am not mistaken. It has only been since the 1950’s that any serious studies/research has been done on homosexuality and those studies do not support the assertion that was made.

The knowledge that homosexual acts are disordered stems from an understanding of what a human being is and what is good for him.

That is incorrect. Such assertions are made from opinion and have very little to do with understanding.

these opinions cant stem from understanding because they were formed before we had any understanding of homosexuality, they were formed before the term ‘homosexual’ was created. They were formed out of ignorance and out off the idea that everything has to conform to a certain way.