Why do some Catholics support "Gay Marriage"

[Thorns]

Then prove it. Produce the oldest document that records a Christian marriage. We’ll see how it compares to other, non-Christian marriages.

Of course, there is no such document. You’re just taking it on faith that such marriages existed. But the fact is that Christians borrowed the concept of marriage from other cultures, just like they borrowed Christmas from the Pagans’ Winter Solstice (same time of year, feasts, meeting with family, exchanging of presents, evergreen trees, etc.).

I dont know how you can get any older than the first two humans.

I think its safe to say all the other definitions of marriages are distortions of the original and are hardly marriages at all. We can see that in the fruits of these actions which prove theyre false all on their own, the truth is just that beautiful.

Polygamy isnt love.
Homosexual unions arent love.
Insert any type of marriage that isnt one man, one woman here, isnt love.

One man, one woman is commitment. Commitment is love.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

This is an interesting sentiment. In what sense is Catholicism’s definition of “marriage” the proper one?

It wasn’t the first; marriage had always been used to pool families’ wealth and secure political alliances before, during, and after the advent of Christianity.

It isn’t the most popular conception of marriage; there are at least as many polygamists as Catholics, for example, and tons of secularists.

It hasn’t even been completely consistent; annulments were invented when people realized that eternally-binding marriages were inconvenient.

So by what criterion is it the best definition?

Simple logic.

 

[Nelka]

Because they don’t understand the proper definition of marriage.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I am just asking why some Catholics support “gay Marriage” not when marriage first occurred.

As I said before…Because they don’t understand the proper definition of marriage.

And now judging from some of the posts so far… apparently some Catholics are ignorant of the Church’s teaching and/or simply want to be politically correct rather than face facts.

 

[livingwordunity]

I dont know how you can get any older than the first two humans.

I think its safe to say all the other definitions of marriages are distortions of the original and are hardly marriages at all. We can see that in the fruits of these actions which prove theyre false all on their own, the truth is just that beautiful.

Polygamy isnt love.
Homosexual unions arent love.
Insert any type of marriage that isnt one man, one woman here, isnt love.

One man, one woman is commitment. Commitment is love.

 

[Oreoracle]

I dont know how you can get any older than the first two humans.

What’s your source? In other words, how do you know there were “two first humans” and that they were married? If your source is the Bible, that is only 2000 years old. Other marriages predate that.

This is really quite simple to understand. It would be easy for me to write a document now, for example, that claims two people were married several millennia ago. But that is not reliable evidence because it is not an eyewitness account. It’s not even a secondary account. It’s just something I made up. For all you know, the Bible’s account is also made up since it is far younger than the events it supposedly chronicles.

In other words, if you claim, say, a 6000-year old marriage, you’d better have a 6000-year old document to prove it.

Simple logic.

I really wish I could just give that answer to every question on my tests. Difficult essay question? Just say “The answer follows from simple logic” and you’re done!

 

[Nacho45]

People are disobedient and rather conform themselves to God they prefer to conform God into what they want Him to be. They have a weak disposition and are easily swayed by emotion and smooth talk. Had they a solid foundation in Church teaching and a true desire to live in the way we are instructed, they would never support any act of abomination including so called homosexual marriage. They would be compassionate to all sinners, but they would not condone their sins.

 

[Wa_Michael]

Why do some Catholics support “Gay Marriage”

VERY SIMPLE:

Corruption is corruption, no matter who is involved.
So, even Catholics can be corrupt. We have witnessed corrupt christian laity, priests, bishops, cardinals and even popes.
What makes it new today? What is important is that, neither me nor the Pope is the ultimate defender of the Church, but Jesus Christ Himself, so all those who defend this corruption, both gays and “I-don’t-care” Catholics will come and go as it has been being throughout the history of Christianity and the relationship of God and man in general.

The Church will stand on truth no matter the cost and for how long she is to wonder!
HISTORY IS THE BEST TEACHER!

 

[Thorns]

What’s your source? In other words, how do you know there were “two first humans” and that they were married? If your source is the Bible, that is only 2000 years old. Other marriages predate that.

In other words, if you claim, say, a 6000-year old marriage, you’d better have a 6000-year old document to prove it

The OT is older than 2,000 years. The traditions before that are even older.

 

[SerbCath]

Well, I’m opposed to same-sex “marriage”, but I don’t feel very strongly about the issue here in the US, because I think that the whole idea of civil “marriage” is blasphemous. I agree with the Canon XII of Session XXIV of the Council of Trent as well as Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors that marriage (at least for Christians) is an ecclesiastical matter, not a civil one. Other religions ought to regulate their own marriages, not the state, and so I don’t really feel that strongly about what civil “marriage” is defined as.

Obviously, if it has to exist, it should be at least be brought into line with Church teachings, and so I oppose same-sex “marriage” on this account.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas

I agree with this. However, with the latest onslaught of lawsuits against those who refues to participate, I wonder what is next. I fear that when a gay couple walks into a Catholic church and asks to be married and are refused–they will sue. The mixing of civil and sacramental marriage has brought this disaster upon us.

I think the solution in the interim may be that the Catholic church stops performing what is essentially a mix of both (where the priest acts as an agent of the state while he coincidentally performs a sacramental marriage). In other words, the Church needs to be proactive and state essentially “as of today, priests will NOT sign any civil marriage documents. They will perfrom the sacrament only. What couples do to “legalize” their union after that is up to them.”

 

[Oreoracle]

The OT is older than 2,000 years. The traditions before that are even older.

There isn’t much of a consensus on how old various books of the Bible are. According to Wikipedia, the Book of Genesis is now believed to be from 5th to 6th century B.C. So it’s about 2500 years old. Big deal, that doesn’t affect my argument.

 

[Oreoracle]

Oh, and not to mention the fact that the Book of Genesis doesn’t even use the term “marriage”.

 

[Mandychu22]

As I said before…Because they don’t understand the proper definition of marriage.

Or because they recognise the right of the majority to determine what legal marriage is defined as, and also recognise that legal marriage =/= marriage as the Church defines it.

Just because they use the term marriage, which is in common use (at least in my area of the world) meaning ‘marriage’, ‘civil unions’, and sometimes even ‘common law partners’, doesn’t mean that they believe it to be a marriage as the Church defines it. They could call it anything, however language has evolved such that the word marriage now includes those other definitions within the English language.

The majority also gets to decide what words are defined as… and since the majority of English speakers are not Practicing, Informed Catholics, we lose that one too. If we want them differentiated within language, perhaps we should coin a new word. Marriage as defined by the Church is a concept that is no longer associated with the word marriage in general use, and hasn’t been in quite some time. (And I don’t see why using a new word would detract from the concept… perhaps if we used the latin word? )

It seems like a waste of time to argue semantics with people who couldn’t care less what the Church teaches. Smile, nod, and understand that you are married civilly AND within the Church. And teach your children the difference so they’re also informed.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I really wish I could just give that answer to every question on my tests. Difficult essay question? Just say “The answer follows from simple logic” and you’re done!

I like to keep it simple.

You ask…I answer.

Ask a question that requires elaboration and I will be glad to provide.

 

[Mandychu22]

I agree with this. However, with the latest onslaught of lawsuits against those who refues to participate, I wonder what is next. I fear that when a gay couple walks into a Catholic church and asks to be married and are refused–they will sue. The mixing of civil and sacramental marriage has brought this disaster upon us.

I think the solution in the interim may be that the Catholic church stops performing what is essentially a mix of both (where the priest acts as an agent of the state while he coincidentally performs a sacramental marriage). In other words, the Church needs to be proactive and state essentially "as of today, priests will NOT sign any civil marriage documents. They will perfrom the sacrament only. What couples do to “legalize” their union after that is up to them."

I don’t understand why that hasn’t happened everywhere already (I believe it has, in some manner, in France… you need a civil ceremony AND a religious one if you want the benefits of both). It would take care of any lawsuits, and also help Catholics to understand that there is actually a difference.

 

[TMC]

I hope you realize that it is the first definition of marriage, going all the way back to the first ever human beings. Marriage has always been one man, one woman.

Really? So the bible is wrong when it reports that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines? And that David had eight wives and who knows how many concubines? And so forth?

 

[TMC]

I am just asking why some Catholics support “gay Marriage” not when marriage first occurred.

Because they believe it is right and just to give gay people the right to marry, of course.

 

[Origen52]

I agree with this. However, with the latest onslaught of lawsuits against those who refues to participate, I wonder what is next. I fear that when a gay couple walks into a Catholic church and asks to be married and are refused–they will sue. The mixing of civil and sacramental marriage has brought this disaster upon us.

I think the solution in the interim may be that the Catholic church stops performing what is essentially a mix of both (where the priest acts as an agent of the state while he coincidentally performs a sacramental marriage). In other words, the Church needs to be proactive and state essentially “as of today, priests will NOT sign any civil marriage documents. They will perfrom the sacrament only. What couples do to “legalize” their union after that is up to them.”

I don’t know if this will quell your fears, but in Canada same sex marriage has been legal since 2005. There has been no attempt to force any denomination to perform SSM. The system you described is what they have in France and that also seems to work well.

 

[SerbCath]

I don’t understand why that hasn’t happened everywhere already (I believe it has, in some manner, in France… you need a civil ceremony AND a religious one if you want the benefits of both). It would take care of any lawsuits, and also help Catholics to understand that there is actually a difference.

I think its because people (read: social conservatives) are really really really hoping that we can just click our heals together and rewind the clock to a point where the state definition of marriage (sort of) lined up with the church one.

In reality, it never did (contract vs sacrament) but on the outsite (one man one woman) it appeared to.

Marriage “licenses” by the state did not exist 400 years ago. Once they state got involved, this was all predictable.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Or because they recognise the right of the majority to determine what legal marriage is defined as, and also recognise that legal marriage =/= marriage as the Church defines it.

Mandy, the “majority” could decide that from now on oranges will be known as apples.

That does not make an orange an apple.