Why do some Catholics support "Gay Marriage"

[MaryT777]

I did. You evaded answering the question because you can’t.

But I’m rather accommodating, so I’ll ask again:* Why is the Catholic definition of “marriage” preferable to other definitions, especially considering that it hasn’t been a consistent definition, nor is it the most widespread, nor was it the first?*

Why are other definitions preferable to the Catholic definition in your opinion? Burden of proof that other definitions are better is on your shoulders if your reject the Catholic Church defintion and then let us know by what authority the author of that definition has to define it as truth.
Mary.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I did. You evaded answering the question because you can’t.

But I’m rather accommodating, so I’ll ask again:* Why is the Catholic definition of “marriage” preferable to other definitions, especially considering that it hasn’t been a consistent definition, nor is it the most widespread, nor was it the first?*

Firstly I don’t agree with the premise of your question

Many societies allowed polygamy, many allowed child marriages, some allowed marriage within families; but none in thousands of years defined marriage as the union of people of the same sex.

Given that no society in thousands of years has recognized or defined same-sex marriage, it is, obvious that the Catholic definition is not only preferable, but correct.

 

[HelenRose]

I did. You evaded answering the question because you can’t.

But I’m rather accommodating, so I’ll ask again:* Why is the Catholic definition of “marriage” preferable to other definitions, especially considering that it hasn’t been a consistent definition, nor is it the most widespread, nor was it the first?*

Your question is a valid one. That is why the word “marriage” has no practical meaning in the secular world. So many young men and women are opting out of “marriage” because they see it as a restricting legalistic piece of paper. Many idealistic young couples see their love as being so much more than the legal form of a piece of paper.

If you look in any dictionary you will see that words may have many meanings. Before you begin a debate all parties must agree to the meanings of the words used in the debate. So, to carry on with this kind of debate, you are correct in wanting to come to terms with the main word “marriage”

This is impossible because neither side is willing to give up their definition so this debate will be a matter of circling one another with very little substance.

 

[marymary1975]

Because people confuse tolerance with love. ‘To truly love someone I must support them in everything they do.’

Plus they underestimate the importance of the issue. ‘Its not murder, it’s just two people getting ‘married’, I don’t care.’

Agree. They just don’t understand that being charitable does not mean approving sinful actions and they don’t understand that Jesus’ command of not judging the state of someone soul doesn’t mean the you cannot tell right from wrong.

 

[TMC]

Incorrect. The vast majority of civil marriages in the world are recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. The only ones that are not come under two categories: lack of canonical form for baptized Catholics, and diriment impediments such as a pre-existing marriage bond, impotence, or union not between one man and one woman.

Hmm… maybe we are using a different view of the word “valid.” Maybe the word I should be using is “illicit.” Certainly, if two people run down to the courthouse and get married, the Church does not consider that a sacramental marriage. If they become Catholic, the Church is going to want them to get their marriage ratified by the Church, right?

But even if it is not the majority, their are literally millions of marriages that are clearly not recognized by the Church for the reasons you give. So why shouldn’t gay marriages be the same? I am guessing there are far fewer gay marriages than there are marriages the Church considers invalid because of a pre-existing bond.

 

[VanSensei]

OP, the reason why Catholics support gay marriage is the same reason why a Muslim eats pork or a Jew does not repent on Yom Kippur and that’s that no one’s perfect. Everyone makes mistakes.

 

[Corki]

Hmm… maybe we are using a different view of the word “valid.” Maybe the word I should be using is “illicit.” Certainly, if two people run down to the courthouse and get married, the Church does not consider that a sacramental marriage. .

That’s incorrect. If neither one is Catholic and there isn’t some other reason (such as having a prior marriage or being underage), they would be validly married. If both are non-Catholic Christians, they would be Sacramentally married as well.

If they become Catholic, the Church is going to want them to get their marriage ratified by the Church, right?

No. If they were married before they became Catholic, nothing changes when they become Catholic. If they were (one or both) unbaptized when they got married, the marriage automatically becomes Sacramental when they are Baptized. Nothing has to be “ratified”.

But even if it is not the majority, their are literally millions of marriages that are clearly not recognized by the Church for the reasons you give.

This is true.

So why shouldn’t gay marriages be the same? I am guessing there are far fewer gay marriages than there are marriages the Church considers invalid because of a pre-existing bond

Two reasons come immediately to mind (I am sure there are more):

1. Because those other marriages have a fixable flaw. They can become valid marriages.
2. Because those other marriages do not involve an attempt to normalize a disordered orientation. In fact, in many if not most cases, they are indistinguishable from a valid marriage to all but those with very close knowledge of the couple’s past.

 

[TMC]

And whoever said Solomon and David were sinless?

Wait, we are shifting the ground here. You said that unless it is one man and one woman it is NOT a marriage, not that it was a sinful marriage. The bible says that marriage is not always one man and one woman. Also, the bible never condemns Solomon or David (or anyone) for having multiple wives. It seems to me it lists their many wives as a sign of God’s favor, not their sinfulness. So -]even within Scripture, the meaning of marriage shifts about./-] EDIT - upon further reflection, maybe it doesn’t shift about. I don’t think there is anywhere in Scripture that changes the rule from polygyny to monogamy, is there?

ANOTHER EDIT - I suppose 1 Corinthians at least implies that monogamy is the rule, but I am not sure it was the universal rule by the 1st century. Anyone know?

 

[TMC]

That’s incorrect. If neither one is Catholic and there isn’t some other reason (such as having a prior marriage or being underage), they would be validly married. If both are non-Catholic Christians, they would be Sacramentally married as well.

No, that is not right. Sacramental marriage requires divine sanction. A marriage before a civil magistrate is not a sacramental marriage. Even I know that.

No. If they were married before they became Catholic, nothing changes when they become Catholic. If they were (one or both) unbaptized when they got married, the marriage automatically becomes Sacramental when they are Baptized. Nothing has to be “ratified”.

Not so sure about this. Maybe if two Christians are married in the ceremony of another Church. I think that two atheists that got hitched at the courthouse are not considered to be married and have to have their union blessed. I may be wrong on this point, my canon law is a bit rusty.

This is true.

Well, we agree on something.

Two reasons come immediately to mind (I am sure there are more):

1. Because those other marriages have a fixable flaw. They can become valid marriages.

1. Because those other marriages do not involve an attempt to normalize a disordered orientation. In fact, in many if not most cases, they are indistinguishable from a valid marriage to all but those with very close knowledge of the couple’s past.

No, those marriages do not have a fixable flaw. Someone with a prior existing bond can’t undo that. There is the polite fiction of the annulment, but surely you agree there are at least some marriages that can’t be annulled (otherwise its just “Catholic divorce”). And defects like perpetual impotence can’t be fixed either.

I agree that the Church views all homosexual relationships as “disordered,” but the Church also finds adulterous relationships to be disordered, and considers all second marriages to be a perpetual state of ongoing adultery. So I don’t see the difference.

As to your final point, are you seriously saying that we have to have a whole other set of laws and rules for gay marriage because other kinds of “disordered” relationships are easier to hide? I don’t think that either religious or legal principles should turn on appearances rather than substance.

 

[Thorns]

Wait, we are shifting the ground here. You said that unless it is one man and one woman it is NOT a marriage, not that it was a sinful marriage. The bible says that marriage is not always one man and one woman. Also, the bible never condemns Solomon or David (or anyone) for having multiple wives. It seems to me it lists their many wives as a sign of God’s favor, not their sinfulness. So even within Scripture, the meaning of marriage shifts about.

Incorrect. The Bible never promotes 700 wives as true marriage, it simply states what happened in regards to Solomon and David. Real marriage always was, is, and will be one man, one woman.

 

[Elizium23]

I may be wrong on this point, my canon law is a bit rusty.

Yes, you’re completely wrong on many points, and your Canon Law is more than rusty, it’s downright inaccurate.

(1) A sacramental marriage is any valid marriage between two baptized persons. A civil wedding of two Presbyterians before a Justice of the Peace, a Vegas wedding between two Methodists before Elvis in the Little Chapel, and a High Church wedding between two Episcopalians at St. Matthew’s, these are all valid, sacramental weddings.

(2) A natural marriage is any valid marriage that is not sacramental. Two atheists married by a Universal Life pastor, two pagans married by a Druid priestess, two Hindus married by a Brahmin priest, these are all valid natural marriages.

 

[Elizium23]

To answer the question in the OP, Catholics support homosexual “marriage” because they have bought into the Culture of Death which pervades our culture today. They believe that Population Control is the right answer to society’s ills and that we, as a culture, should contracept, abort, and homosexual-union ourselves out of existence, to appease the poor Earth which we have so overpopulated.

 

[TMC]

Incorrect. The Bible never promotes 700 wives as true marriage, it simply states what happened in regards to Solomon and David. Real marriage always was, is, and will be one man, one woman.

Easy to say, but I think its hard to support with Scripture (or history, for that matter).

 

[TCEL]

OP, Catholics are prone to mistakes, and pride, like everyone else. I know I am.

Also, I want to mention that just because something is in the Bible doesn’t necessarily mean it’s held up as something to emulate. Consequences may be implied in the text and the story rather than directly stated. For a quick example, Solomon’s multiple wives brought him problems, but the Bible doesn’t directly state that. Additionally, we do know Jesus (who is God) when questioned on marriage, brought it back to the original intention God meant as defined between one man and one woman. So, that’s a kind of “condemnation.”

 

[Mandychu22]

So based on language only, would you expect the Church to eventually accept the term “marriage” to define a same sex relationship ?

Absolutely, 100% yes. In the same way the Church has accepted any and all current languages (instead of insisting on using Aramaic, Greek, or Latin when teaching and/or communicating and teaching), I would expect the Church to accept languages and language changes of the future. Particularly where she wants to be absolutely clear when communicating information about sacraments.

The word marriage is no longer sufficient to define the sacrament within Western society due to the evolution of language, so in order to teach properly about the sacrament of marriage the Church must adapt her language to be fully understood. Digging in our heels and telling people that it’s ‘our word’ (it’s not, it belongs to everyone) and as such they must all adapt their understanding to suit us will only lead to poorly taught individuals who see no difference between a civil union and a sacramental marriage.

It is even more logical when you consider that the Church herself already distinguishes between different types of marriage (Sacramental and Natural), which could lead to confusion about other types of marriage being valid (even though the Church teaches that they are not. Particularly among young people.

 

[edwest2]

Because some Catholics prefer to listen to the media and don’t understand the following:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

And some don’t know what tolerance is:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0014.html

The devil’s primary weapon is deception and appealing to emotions rather than reason. There is no recognized psychological condition that causes people to have an irrational fear of gay people. I never had it and don’t know anyone who does.

There are moral absolutes, and right reason.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mandychu22]

To answer the question in the OP, Catholics support homosexual “marriage” because they have bought into the Culture of Death which pervades our culture today. They believe that Population Control is the right answer to society’s ills and that we, as a culture, should contracept, abort, and homosexual-union ourselves out of existence, to appease the poor Earth which we have so overpopulated.

Put word’s in people’s mouths much?

1. There is a HUGE difference between allowing abortion and allowing two gay people to have the same legal rights as two strait people. The last time I checked, signing documents and having a party didn’t result in anybody dying. They’re adults forming a legal contract with one another that we as a society have come to call marriage. They both consent, unlike in an abortion where a child is killed.
2. For many people, belief that consenting adults should be allowed to form contracts with one another has nothing to do with overpopulation, and everything to do with free will. It may be a sin, but they have the right to make that decision for themselves. In much the same manner that straight people have the right to make that decision by being married legally outside of the Church (for Catholics, at least).

Until we see people openly and actively opposing the legal marriage(s) of any baptised Catholic unless they take place inside a church, and openly and actively fighting to make divorce completely illegal, I see that as inexcusable hypocrisy. It’s not as though they’re two completely different things, they’re the exact same sin. We’re just more ‘comfortable’ with one because it LOOKS like sacramental marriage at a distance… which might actually make it the more dangerous of the two when forming one’s conscience.

 

[Corki]

No, that is not right. Sacramental marriage requires divine sanction. A marriage before a civil magistrate is not a sacramental marriage. Even I know that.

I thought you were asking about Catholic recognition. The Church recognizes as valid the marriage between two non-Catholics even by a justice of the peace. The Church recognizes as Sacramental the marriage between two non-Catholic Christians even by a justice of the peace.

Not so sure about this. Maybe if two Christians are married in the ceremony of another Church.

That would be valid but so would two non-Catholic Christians married in a civil ceremony. The only civil marriages involving non-Catholics (without impediments) that the Church doesn’t recognize, I believe are those of the Orthodox. Since the Orthodox require a Church wedding for validity, the Catholic Church abides by that.

I think that two atheists that got hitched at the courthouse are not considered to be married and have to have their union blessed.

You might not consider them married but the Church does. It’s a valid, natural marriage. Natural meaning non-Sacramental. Their marriage would become automatically Sacramental when they were Baptized (as Catholics or Protestants).

I may be wrong on this point, my canon law is a bit rusty.

Yes.

Well, we agree on something.

No, those marriages do not have a fixable flaw. Someone with a prior existing bond can’t undo that. There is the polite fiction of the annulment, but surely you agree there are at least some marriages that can’t be annulled (otherwise its just “Catholic divorce”). And defects like perpetual impotence can’t be fixed either.

Prior bonds can always be resolved with the death of the first spouse. Annulment is also a possibility. Permanent impotence, you would be right about but that’s not “literally millions.” And yes, there are a few people who are too mentally ill to validly marry. So, there are very, very few civil marriages that are both invalid according to the Church that could not become valid marriages.

I agree that the Church views all homosexual relationships as “disordered,” but the Church also finds adulterous relationships to be disordered, and considers all second marriages to be a perpetual state of ongoing adultery. So I don’t see the difference.

True which is why no Catholic could support someone being an “out and proud” adulterer any more than they could support same-sex marriage. But, at best, that equates homosexual attempts at marriage with other sinful actions. It does not make a case for regularizing SS"M" or adultery, for that matter.

As to your final point, are you seriously saying that we have to have a whole other set of laws and rules for gay marriage because other kinds of “disordered” relationships are easier to hide? I don’t think that either religious or legal principles should turn on appearances rather than substance

No, I am saying that for many illicit heterosexual marriages, there is no reason to assume that there is something wrong going on. We are supposed to see every situation in its most charitable light. The guy with his third wife might have received two decrees of nullity. The couple who get married on the beach might have received a dispensation from the Bishop. That couple who ran away to Vegas and got married by “Elvis” ten years ago might have had their marriage convalidated since then. But the two men or two women who try to get married **always and every single time **are doing something immoral. There is no way to see that situation is a positive light.

Your question was why is it different. My response answered that question.

I am not talking about laws. I am talking about the question in the OP of why Catholics can’t support or tolerate SS"M" even if it’s just a civil “marriage”.

 

[edwest2]

Put word’s in people’s mouths much?

1. There is a HUGE difference between allowing abortion and allowing two gay people to have the same legal rights as two strait people. The last time I checked, signing documents and having a party didn’t result in anybody dying. They’re adults forming a legal contract with one another that we as a society have come to call marriage. They both consent, unlike in an abortion where a child is killed.
2. For many people, belief that consenting adults should be allowed to form contracts with one another has nothing to do with overpopulation, and everything to do with free will. It may be a sin, but they have the right to make that decision for themselves. In much the same manner that straight people have the right to make that decision by being married legally outside of the Church (for Catholics, at least).

Until we see people openly and actively opposing the legal marriage(s) of any baptised Catholic unless they take place inside a church, and openly and actively fighting to make divorce completely illegal, I see that as inexcusable hypocrisy. It’s not as though they’re two completely different things, they’re the exact same sin. We’re just more ‘comfortable’ with one because it LOOKS like sacramental marriage at a distance… which might actually make it the more dangerous of the two when forming one’s conscience.

Please don’t change the subject. The answer to the OP is that we - everybody - are being called a nonsense word (homophobic) whenever a gay couple enters into a contract and we don’t accept it as normative. Nobody needs my permission, or any Catholic’s permission, to do what they want. That is the 24/7 problem.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Oreoracle]

Why are other definitions preferable to the Catholic definition in your opinion?

I didn’t say they were. Someone made a claim, and I asked for substantiation of that claim. The burden of proof is on them.

Firstly I don’t agree with the premise of your question

Many societies allowed polygamy, many allowed child marriages, some allowed marriage within families; but none in thousands of years defined marriage as the union of people of the same sex.

Again, I didn’t say they did. The claim was that the Catholic definition is the only proper definition; it is superior to every other definition humanity has dreamed up in millennia. I asked why it was better than every other definition; I didn’t have a homosexual definition in mind.

Before you begin a debate all parties must agree to the meanings of the words used in the debate. So, to carry on with this kind of debate, you are correct in wanting to come to terms with the main word “marriage”.

This is probably the most intelligent response I’ve seen thus far in this thread.