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

  • Thread starter Thread starter sweetcharity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Faithdancer said:
Amen, Constantine. Marriage is a Sacrament, meant for a man and a woman. This is why men and women have complementary bodies. Our Church teaches us that homosexual activity is gravely disordered and for those who engage in homosexual activity, the Sacrament of Marriage is forever denied, Deo gratias!

The devil loves to mock what is holy, and gay “marriage” mocks a holy Sacrament. I guess the atheists and pagan pantheists and what not who lurk here can’t get it through their heads that this is a Catholic forum, and the Catholic church teaches that homosexual activity is an abomination. Now as far as two celibate people with homosexual inclination living together, that’s a grey area. But for the Church to sanction a same sex couple being “married” and “raising children?” Never gonna happen!**

How on Earth do you know what the devil loves?
Click to expand...
 
Elric said:
Was that a shot at me?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the thread and no one here has the right to tell you how to post. You can report offensive posts to the moderator using the handy triangle in the upper right.
 
markeverett49 said:
I doubt this. Part of believing in ‘one holy, catholic and apostolic church’ is granting that its moral teachings are to be followed. That these creed-loving friends of yours think the Church is teaching moral error in at least three areas—divorce, artificial contraception, and same-sex marriage–means they think Christ is teaching moral error for he is the head of the Church!
Click to expand...
Where in the gospels did Christ mention ANYTHING about any of these?
 
What people seem to be missing here is that whether the Church approves of it or not, gay marriage is already here. It’s been legal in NY and other states for quite some time. Non-Catholic churches are already allowing such marriages to take place. Gay couples are being married by Justices of the Peace.

The Church is not going to change, and I’m really not convinced that anyone actually thinks it will. As long as you are a member of the Catholic Church you can’t marry a person of the same gender. It’s when the Catholic church attempts to make the rules for their members binding on all American citizens that it meets resistance. The Church does not expect couples who are not Catholic to receive annulments, that is a requirement for members. Non-Catholics can simply divorce. I think it’s fair that people ask why some requirements concerning marriage are for Church members only and others are for everyone. The inconsistency weakens the argument.
 
markeverett49 said:
Advocacy for same-sex marriage stems from a confusion about marriage and sexuality.
Click to expand...
Originally Posted by Julia Mae forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
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.
Click to expand...

Let’s unwind here a second. You just said that Advocacy for same-sex marriage stems from a confusion about marriage and sexuality has been true since before you were born.

I prove your statement untrue by swimming a single black dog into your sea of “all dogs are white” logic. Advocacy for same-sex marriage is not based on a misunderstanding of anything. You believe otherwise. That’s where we are.

Confusion about sexuality runs rampant in all these threads and certainly in the Church which has always lagged a bit behind in the science department. And that makes it almost inevitable that the teachings about sexuality by the Church are based in faulty understandings.

Do people like me understand what the Church teaches? Yes, we do.
Click to expand...
 
Elric said:
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.
Click to expand...
Elric, the two questions refer to Catholic doctrine, and were a response to persistent error in understanding Catholic doctrine and to misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine. Marriage in the Roman Catholic Church can only be between a man and a woman and is one of the seven Sacraments. “Gravely disordered” is how the Catholic Catechism describes sex between two men or two women. For a Roman Catholic to reject Catholic doctrine is heresy.
 
marianne_king said:
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?
Click to expand...
Lawyers, in my experience, don’t have to be experts, they have to be able to call experts. But, in the event of such a lawsuit, presuming you could get a court to hear it and not simply dismiss on it’s face, the suit would be against either a specific Parish or Diocese. Now the question is law is: does the venue or organization offer the service to the public? The answer is “no.” Once this is established no civil rights issues are on the table. This isn’t a case of something offered to heterosexuals not offered to gay people, it’s a matter of a Sacrament that isn’t even available to all heterosexual Catholics.

This is the matter at issue under civil rights act.
 
Bradski said:
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.
Click to expand...
I know Gay people who have adopted children and…since they COULD have their own biological children these days I thought it was very kind of them.
The adopted children are healthy, happy and doing well in school. The Gay couple just wanted a family like a lot of people have, I see nothing abnormal or disordered about that. But that’s just me.
 
Seeker1961 said:
. I think it’s fair that people ask why some requirements concerning marriage are for Church members only and others are for everyone. The inconsistency weakens the argument.
Click to expand...
I agree. However, in defense of Catholics and others who are fighting against SSM, the divorce battle was lost centuries ago. This battle is still on-going. I think a lot of states are playing a waiting game until they see what the Courts do in California. If the ruling stands, or the Court finds the same way the lower court did, SSM will sweep the nation. If the lower court is overturned, there will be instant referendums to repeal the SSM laws that are extant.
 
Julia_Mae said:
Lawyers, in my experience, don’t have to be experts, they have to be able to call experts. But, in the event of such a lawsuit, presuming you could get a court to hear it and not simply dismiss on it’s face, the suit would be against either a specific Parish or Diocese. Now the question is law is: does the venue or organization offer the service to the public? The answer is “no.” Once this is established no civil rights issues are on the table. This isn’t a case of something offered to heterosexuals not offered to gay people, it’s a matter of a Sacrament that isn’t even available to all heterosexual Catholics.

This is the matter at issue under civil rights act.

I was in my twenties when they a started it, and it got to be a joke on the Tonight show in about 5 minutes, so most people my age passed. My daughter joined, but didn’t care for it. To each their own. Internet forums actually tend to draw a quite intelligent group of posters, for the most part,. Well, unless they are devoted to Evil Housewives of Cleveland or something.
Click to expand...
Well said, Julia!
The notion that some Gay couple would sue the priest has become a canard (imo) HOWEVER I would definitely watch the trial IF it happened, because it would be sure to be interesting.
 
markeverett49 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well said, Mark. I have to go off and teach religious ed for the teens now, before Mass, and will make sure over the coming weeks and months that they understand the difference between sound Catholic doctrine and heresy. Pax Christi, Frater!😃
 
Elric said:
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…
Click to expand...
The studies in question do not ADDRESS the question of whether homosexual acts are disordered, and since they don’t address it, what makes you think they could answer it? I don’t know when serious studies/research started on adultery but I don’t need that research to know that adultery is wrong. (It’s funny that no one seems to think the Church opposes adultery because it hates heterosexuals…)
 
markeverett49 said:
The studies in question do not ADDRESS the question of whether homosexual acts are disordered, and since they don’t address it, what makes you think they could answer it? I don’t know when serious studies/research started on adultery but I don’t need that research to know that adultery is wrong. (It’s funny that no one seems to think the Church opposes adultery because it hates heterosexuals…)
Click to expand...
Mark, can you find any place the Church defines “disordered?” Because I think in the CCC it is only used once: for homosexuality.
 
Bradski said:
So you fell in love and decided to make a lifetime committment to that person. Who could argue with that?
Click to expand...
Also, he didn’t even THINK about those privileges because he was so accustomed to having them that it never crossed his mind that some folks are denied those privileges.

It’s just like ME assuming that when I flick the lightswitch that the room will be brighter, not until the light DOESN’T come on do I actually give any thought to it.

PS: i hope his wife doesn’t see that post, SHE may assume that love had something to do with the marriage, unless it was arranged or something like that.
 
Julia_Mae said:
Mark, can you find any place the Church defines “disordered?” Because I think in the CCC it is only used once: for homosexuality.
Click to expand...
Are you sure, Julia Mae? You mean there’s nothing there about violating a child? Hmm…that explains a lot.
 
marianne_king said:
Where in the gospels did Christ mention ANYTHING about any of these?
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with it? Jesus doesn’t teach in the Gospels that slavery is wrong either, much less that sexism is, or that genocide is wrong. Heck, he wasn’t explicitly opposed to capital punishment and he endured it!
 
Faithdancer said:
I answered the original question, from a moral theological standpoint. You don’t believe in absolute morality or in God, which means we have no common ground for discussion in moral theology- a subject which you clearly do not understand or seek to understand. Having no background, you can only result to mockery.
Click to expand...
Sorry. It just sounds so silly to me. Like blaming Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny on homosexuality. Even you must admit that you can’t say for certain whether Satan exists.

And, no, I don’t really care about moral theology. 🤷 It’s all a bit silly to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top