Why do some Catholics support "Gay Marriage"

[Corki]

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.

straight

Yes, there is a huge difference. There is a huge difference between rape and murder too but they are both crimes of horrible violence.

The acceptance of abortion and the acceptance of same-sex unions are more closely related. Both stem from a complete denial of the purpose of marriage and of the value of children.

 

[Oreoracle]

Another point I want to make: Allowing gays to marry isn’t a form of population control. They wouldn’t have reproduced anyway because, you know, they’re gay.

 

[TMC]

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.

So what does “sacramental” mean, if a marriage which is clearly not a sacrament qualifies? A civil servant is not empowered to administer a sacrament, and the parties aren’t intending to enter into a sacrament, so its odd to call that action “sacramental.”

But, after reviewing Canon law, you may be right. It appears that the Church considers a civil marriage between two Catholics to be invalid, but under certain circumstances may recognize a civil marriage between non-Catholics. That is an odd rule, but appears to be the rule.

At any rate, its obvious that the there are millions of heterosexual marriages that the Church does not recognize as valid, either because of a pre-existing bond, or for other reasons. Those reasons are often irreparable. I don’t understand how that differs from gay marriages that the Church also does not recognize as valid or reparable.

 

[Mandychu22]

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

If you react to the idea of a civil contract of marriage between two gay people in a different manner than you would to the idea of a Catholic couple who married outside of the Church, you are effectively discriminating against one of those two couples. Taking up (figurative) arms against gay marriage while saying nothing about the other legal marriage contracts that the Church believes are impossible is discrimination. The idea that these types of sins are already legal and very prevalent and accepted is very much linked to why many Catholics are fine with making marriage contracts between gay people legal.

You don’t have to think that being in such a sexual relationship moral, right, good, or acceptable to understand that allowing one group of people committing a sin to have far more rights than another group committing the exact same sin is discriminatory. The problem is not ‘gay marriage’, the problem is that indiscriminate sexual activity is not considered immoral in our society; the problem is that marriage is not considered to be a lifelong commitment; the problem is that people no longer consider sex to be linked to procreation; the problem is that human beings are considered an inconvenience and disposable.

All gay marriage will do is allow two men (or women) who are likely already in a sexual relationship to sign a contract saying that they have certain legal rights and responsibilities to each other, when other couples in an illicit sexual relationship already have the right to do so (and are not being required to fight for that privilege).

 

[TMC]

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.

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.

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).

Yes.

Well, we agree on something.

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.

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.

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”.

I thought we were talking about laws - why some Catholics support laws allowing gay people to marry. The Catholic Church does not advocating applying any of the Church’s other rules on marriage to non-Catholics. Why is this one law different?

 

[edwest2]

If you react to the idea of a civil contract of marriage between two gay people in a different manner than you would to the idea of a Catholic couple who married outside of the Church, you are effectively discriminating against one of those two couples. Taking up (figurative) arms against gay marriage while saying nothing about the other legal marriage contracts that the Church believes are impossible is discrimination. The idea that these types of sins are already legal and very prevalent and accepted is very much linked to why many Catholics are fine with making marriage contracts between gay people legal.

You don’t have to think that being in such a sexual relationship moral, right, good, or acceptable to understand that allowing one group of people committing a sin to have far more rights than another group committing the exact same sin is discriminatory. The problem is not ‘gay marriage’, the problem is that indiscriminate sexual activity is not considered immoral in our society; the problem is that marriage is not considered to be a lifelong commitment; the problem is that people no longer consider sex to be linked to procreation; the problem is that human beings are considered an inconvenience and disposable.

All gay marriage will do is allow two men (or women) who are likely already in a sexual relationship to sign a contract saying that they have certain legal rights and responsibilities to each other, when other couples in an illicit sexual relationship already have the right to do so (and are not being required to fight for that privilege).

Like I wrote previously - who needs my permission? The carefully engineered dissolution of what love, marriage and commitment means was all carefully planned. I watched it unfold. I know who is responsible. No, those who made the wrong choice are not let off the hook, but wrong choices are still wrong choices regardless of your orientation. This isn’t about ‘my reaction,’ it’s about right and wrong, black and white.

The destruction of privacy regarding sexual intimacy was not desired by anyone except those who spent millions of dollars creating outlets for it. No one with a sense of right or wrong was asking for it.

Peace,
Ed

 

[MaryT777]

Another point I want to make: Allowing gays to marry isn’t a form of population control. They wouldn’t have reproduced anyway because, you know, they’re gay.

Who said anything about population control? Gay women can be artificially inseminated
and have kids.

There is no such thing as gay marriage in reality for the definition of marriage is one man and one woman in according with Catholic Church teaching.

 

[Mandychu22]

straight

[thanks ]

Yes, there is a huge difference. There is a huge difference between rape and murder too but they are both crimes of horrible violence.

Both stem from a complete denial of the purpose of marriage and of the value of children.

There is already the assumption within our society that marriage and children do not go together. Abortion and gay marriage may stem from the same idea, but they assume very different forms.

Calling someone a cruel name falls under the ‘Thou shalt not kill’ category, but I don’t think that the consequences for taunting should be the same as pulling a gun and shooting someone. Torturing someone to death, on the other hand, deserves harsher punishment than a murder that stems from temporary insanity. There are degrees, and different degrees should be dealt with accordingly.

Abortion kills an innocent, gay marriage allows for a legal contract to form under the current cultural assumption that marriage is about tax breaks or ‘betting someone half your stuff that you can stick it out longer’. It doesn’t take away from the cultural perception of marriage, that skew has been in place for decades. Birth control is readily available, and used by much of the population. Illicit marriages already take place every day, and divorce rates are insanely high… yet I don’t see the people who are protesting gay marriage picketing by courts to end divorce, or drugstores to prevent the use of condoms.

If it’s all the same thing, as you seem to be stating, then surely we should be fighting condoms, divorce, and vasectomies as vehemently as we do abortion and gay marriage… the question might be ‘why do Catholics support society’s supposed right to legalise immoral acts’, but it is in no way limited to gay marriage.

 

[Mandychu22]

Like I wrote previously - who needs my permission? The carefully engineered dissolution of what love, marriage and commitment means was all carefully planned. I watched it unfold. I know who is responsible. No, those who made the wrong choice are not let off the hook, but wrong choices are still wrong choices regardless of your orientation. This isn’t about ‘my reaction,’ it’s about right and wrong, black and white.

The destruction of privacy regarding sexual intimacy was not desired by anyone except those who spent millions of dollars creating outlets for it. No one with a sense of right or wrong was asking for it.

Peace,
Ed

The point is that if you’re behaving in a discriminatory manner (I use you in the general sense, which may not have been apparent in previous posts) you can expect to be called out on it. The word ‘homophobic’ might be stupid (and it is), but you can’t deny that the sentiment behind it has merit. Yes, they are behaving inappropriately with regards to their sexuality… but so are a whole bunch of heterosexual couples. The difference is that people aren’t out protesting about the heterosexual couples, and homosexual couples see this as discriminatory (which it blatantly is).

I’m not contesting that such acts are immoral, I’m stating that calling out a specific group of people (while ignoring other groups committing the same acts) is discriminatory. If calling them out and working against these acts is such an obligation, that obligation must extend to protesting and working against ALL groups committing the same act in order to avoid being discriminatory.

You don’t choose who you are sexually attracted to, you choose the manner in which you act on these attractions. Homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are making the same choices, however only one group is being openly and actively fought against.

 

[on_the_hill]

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.

See, it’s arguments like this that cause us so much trouble.

Population control? Contracept, abort, homosexual union ourselves out of existence?

Ei, ei, ei.

 

[edwest2]

The point is that if you’re behaving in a discriminatory manner (I use you in the general sense, which may not have been apparent in previous posts) you can expect to be called out on it. The word ‘homophobic’ might be stupid (and it is), but you can’t deny that the sentiment behind it has merit. Yes, they are behaving inappropriately with regards to their sexuality… but so are a whole bunch of heterosexual couples. The difference is that people aren’t out protesting about the heterosexual couples, and homosexual couples see this as discriminatory (which it blatantly is).

I’m not contesting that such acts are immoral, I’m stating that calling out a specific group of people (while ignoring other groups committing the same acts) is discriminatory. If calling them out and working against these acts is such an obligation, that obligation must extend to protesting and working against ALL groups committing the same act in order to avoid being discriminatory.

You don’t choose who you are sexually attracted to, you choose the manner in which you act on these attractions. Homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are making the same choices, however only one group is being openly and actively fought against.

Where is the logic in changing the subject, which is 'gay marriage"? Again, to put it another way, no discrimination is occurring. Doing wrong means doing wrong no matter who’s doing it. No one asks my permission to commit adultery, fornication, etc. And if all sexual sins were fought against with equal vigor, that would still not make gay marriage normative.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mandychu22]

Where is the logic in changing the subject, which is 'gay marriage"? Again, to put it another way, no discrimination is occurring. Doing wrong means doing wrong no matter who’s doing it. No one asks my permission to commit adultery, fornication, etc. And if all sexual sins were fought against with equal vigor, that would still not make gay marriage normative.

Peace,
Ed

The subject is not being changed. You are failing to accept that there are nuances to the situation based on the current culture that extend beyond ‘it’s wrong’ when we discuss the legalisation of gay marriage. Bully for you if you think there is no discrimination… that is obviously not the consensus. Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things. Their sexual sins are being treated differently because they belong to a specific group rather than because their sins are different.

You would be absolutely correct in saying that if all sexual sins were fought against with equal vigor gay marriage would still not be moral (normative is a term that refers to societal perception, so it could be normative… just as divorce and remarriage is normative within our society), however we would be fighting against all sexual acts outside of marriage/ that are not open to procreation and would NOT be denying them the legal rights that other groups who commit the same sin have been granted (rather, we would be condemning the actions of all relevant couples).

Fighting to reinvigorate the morals of society with regards to sexual behavior, equally applied to all people: Not discriminatory.
Fighting to prevent a certain group from gaining the legal rights which all other groups have have been granted (regarding legal marriage) to act in a manner that all other groups legally can without such hostile condemnation, while ignoring or partially excusing the same sins committed by another group: Discriminatory.

 

[JimG]

It’s not a question of who is sinning or whose sin is greater. It’s a question of whether same sex marriage is even possible. It is not. There is no sexual complementarity, no possibility of marital relations, nothing conjugal about it. It is a contradiction in terms, a relationship that is non-marital, non-conjugal, non procreative. It’s a non-marital marriage? A square circle? Why has the world gone mad?

 

[Mandychu22]

It’s a question of whether same sex marriage is even possible. It is not. There is no sexual complementarity, no possibility of marital relations, nothing conjugal about it. It is a contradiction in terms, a relationship that is non-marital, non-conjugal, non procreative. It’s a non-marital marriage? A square circle? Why has the world gone mad?

By the Church’s definition of the word marriage, I absolutely agree. That’s why when I see someone ask something like ‘Why are some Catholics for gay marriage?’, I assume they are referring to marriage in the commonly held sense of ‘two people who are legally tied together in what society refers to as marriage’.

Otherwise it would be like asking ‘Why are some people for unicorns?’. They could have the most convincing argument ever made, and it won’t matter. It’s impossible, who cares?

I like to be firmly rooted in the real world though, without ‘what if-ing’ impossible situations. (Just my take )

 

[edwest2]

It’s not a question of who is sinning or whose sin is greater. It’s a question of whether same sex marriage is even possible. It is not. There is no sexual complementarity, no possibility of marital relations, nothing conjugal about it. It is a contradiction in terms, a relationship that is non-marital, non-conjugal, non procreative. It’s a non-marital marriage? A square circle? Why has the world gone mad?

I watched as sex in marriage was attacked regularly through the media and through the bad example of others who made it their business to tell us what they did sexually. I don’t care what my neighbors do or don’t do in the sex department. The only difference between the gay, lesbian and bisexual persons I worked with in the 1970s and early 1980s was, even though I knew their orientation, we all got along, did our jobs and went home - and I could care less about what they did on their own time and they didn’t talk about it. What changed since then? They decided to violate their own privacy and be ‘out and proud.’ To who? The public? If a guy wants to dress like a woman, that’s his business. Today - it is accept it or get called names. Today - it’s ‘let make it a point to announce to the world that I’m gay or bi or whatever.’ Nobody I know was interested before. So why the change? To convince LGBT people that there was an enemy and anyone who does not accept them after their self-proclamation is - a list of names not worth repeating. The enemy. There’s no better way to rally the LGBT community than by forcing acceptance on others and calling the opposition all those words.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Corki]

The point is that if you’re behaving in a discriminatory manner (I use you in the general sense, which may not have been apparent in previous posts) you can expect to be called out on it. The word ‘homophobic’ might be stupid (and it is), but you can’t deny that the sentiment behind it has merit. Yes, they are behaving inappropriately with regards to their sexuality… but so are a whole bunch of heterosexual couples. The difference is that people aren’t out protesting about the heterosexual couples, and homosexual couples see this as discriminatory (which it blatantly is).

I’m not contesting that such acts are immoral, I’m stating that calling out a specific group of people (while ignoring other groups committing the same acts) is discriminatory. If calling them out and working against these acts is such an obligation, that obligation must extend to protesting and working against ALL groups committing the same act in order to avoid being discriminatory.

You don’t choose who you are sexually attracted to, you choose the manner in which you act on these attractions. Homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are making the same choices, however only one group is being openly and actively fought against.

All sexual sins are not equal. Should we treat pedophiles the same as those who might look at porn? Most people would say, “of course not”.

But somehow there’s a mental block when it comes to homosexual sins. “Calling out” this group is no different than “calling out” pedophiles or those who engage in incest or prostitution. Each group is “called out” because what they are engaging in is deviant. Homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not making “the same choices”. It is fantasy to say that they are.

 

[Mandychu22]

All sexual sins are not equal. Should we treat pedophiles the same as those who might look at porn? Most people would say, “of course not”.

But somehow there’s a mental block when it comes to homosexual sins. “Calling out” this group is no different than “calling out” pedophiles or those who engage in incest or prostitution. Each group is “called out” because what they are engaging in is deviant. Homosexual couples and heterosexual couples are not making “the same choices”. It is fantasy to say that they are.

They are both choosing to commit sexual sins with consenting partners based on their sexual attractions. The consent is the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, and why homosexuality should not be treated in the same manner.

Many heterosexual couples participate in the same sexual acts homosexuals do. Just because heterosexual couples are capable of sexual intercourse, doesn’t mean that is the sexual act they prefer to use… it’s practically expected that ‘normal’ couples in our society will do these things.

The sexual acts are besides the point in these legal marriages though, the acts are already taking place and society is already relatively approving of them (or at least approving of those same acts between heterosexual couples). The marriages are about legal rights, and if “Suzie” and “Joe” (who both have 3 divorces under their belts, are sterilized, and participate in deviant sexual acts regularly) can legally get married without a crowd of protesters showing up I don’t see why that legal right shouldn’t be extended to anyone who cares to fill out the paperwork.

Edit: I’m sure everyone would want to live in a world where everyone who got married was validly married, lived out their lives loving (action) each other, were giddy with happiness at every pregnancy… the list goes on.

The reality is that we don’t live in that world, and we never will. It’s a legal contract, and that’s all it is. People should be allowed to enter into any contract they desire, so long as it doesn’t violate either party’s fundamental human rights.

 

[edwest2]

They are both choosing to commit sexual sins with consenting partners based on their sexual attractions. The consent is the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia, and why homosexuality should not be treated in the same manner.

Many heterosexual couples participate in the same sexual acts homosexuals do. Just because heterosexual couples are capable of sexual intercourse, doesn’t mean that is the sexual act they prefer to use… it’s practically expected that ‘normal’ couples in our society will do these things.

The sexual acts are besides the point in these legal marriages though, the acts are already taking place and society is already relatively approving of them (or at least approving of those same acts between heterosexual couples). The marriages are about legal rights, and if “Suzie” and “Joe” (who both have 3 divorces under their belts, are sterilized, and participate in deviant sexual acts regularly) can legally get married without a crowd of protesters showing up I don’t see why that legal right shouldn’t be extended to anyone who cares to fill out the paperwork.

Edit: I’m sure everyone would want to live in a world where everyone who got married was validly married, lived out their lives loving (action) each other, were giddy with happiness at every pregnancy… the list goes on.

The reality is that we don’t live in that world, and we never will. It’s a legal contract, and that’s all it is. People should be allowed to enter into any contract they desire, so long as it doesn’t violate either party’s fundamental human rights.

Creating “rights” does not make them real. It’s just inventing things. Predicting the future is not relevant, right and wrong is.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TEPO]

People should be allowed to enter into any contract they desire, so long as it doesn’t violate either party’s fundamental human rights.

Has human rights morphed into humanism? I think it seems to have, otherwise we wouldn’t be ignoring sin for the sake of peace/unity with others… Just an observation, carry on.

 

[edwest2]

Pope Benedict tells us what some want us to believe and force us to accept.

“We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]”

‘Anything goes’ has got to go. There is right and wrong. No one is perfect but Catholics, at least, should realize that we are all part of society and truth does not change.

Peace,
Ed