Why do some Catholics support "Gay Marriage"

[SerbCath]

If you felt that your rights were being violated, would you compromise them? Would you settle for your oppressors just making some concessions, and then complaining that you’re being difficult when you point out that you’re still being oppressed?

A couple of generations ago they probably felt the same about blacks. “They don’t have to stand up on the bus for us anymore, and now they also want to use the same public schools? They’ll never be satisfied!” Well, they shouldn’t have been satisfied. They were right to continue fighting for their rights.

America is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the “mostly free and we’re happy with that”.

The ridiculous analogy between blacks (rounded up by other blacks in Africa, brought to the slave traders, made into slaves in America and Europe) and gays (who are being told that they do not meet the criteria for a marriage license–just like a 9 year old doesn’t meet the criteria for a drivers license) must be sumarily rejected every time is put forward. It makes a mockery of actual bigotry-based oppression.

 

[marymary1975]

Oh, you don’t believe that promotion of homosexuality is part and parcel of the Population Control agenda?

http://www.jillstanek.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/jaffe-memo.png

Now, this memo was circulated in 1969. How many of these points have come to pass as a reality in the intervening 45 years, and how many more do you think will happen in 5-10 years from now? How many are already happening in China or Europe and just have to wait for a little more receptivity over on these shores? Read the whole memo and tell me if you doubt that there is a unified Population Control agenda now.

 

[innertide]

If you felt that your rights were being violated, would you compromise them? Would you settle for your oppressors just making some concessions, and then complaining that you’re being difficult when you point out that you’re still being oppressed?

A couple of generations ago they probably felt the same about blacks. “They don’t have to stand up on the bus for us anymore, and now they also want to use the same public schools? They’ll never be satisfied!” Well, they shouldn’t have been satisfied. They were right to continue fighting for their rights.

America is supposed to be the land of the free, not the land of the “mostly free and we’re happy with that”.

lol @ oppressors, those pesky oppressors and then you go so far as to some how try and lump in black americans into this ? what a stretch, so exactly who are these " oppressors " ?

America is exactly mostly free and we’re happy with that, if we weren’t we would have had multiple civil wars by now, society is more than willing to turn belly up to keep what ever sense of what ever it is that they have at anyones expense . Don’t think so ? look at China, the slave labor of America, and what is America going to do about the horrible conditions that those people go through to make our goods… a few speeches perhaps and some empathy at best.

But get over what ever oppression you think there is in America towards Homosexuals, even towards blacks,women ; there are no more minorities in America, the only differences we have left are those who can afford lawyers that can win a legal case and those who cant.

If you have the money you have the power to make the rules, if you don’t then too bad.

So until the homosexual community can some how figure out how to declare themsleves some endangered species from another planet or can ban together to start paying off politicians they got what they got an that is it. The homosexual community is not about to convince the rest of society to hold hands and welcome them into the world of being married with kids.

But hey forget the rest of what said also, I personally do not care if homosexuals get married, it doesnt to me in any way shape or form hurt anyone; but that is what people do instead of reading an digesting an entire response, they pick and choose what to argue and ignore everything else if that one part does not support their agenda, it only goes to show that those who support homosexual marriages are not open to any other opinions other than their own and if you disagree with anything they say, then you are the ignorant one in the arguement and shame on you.

Double standards,

Homosexuals are allowed to have opinions, Heterosexuals are not.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Children are neither required nor necessary for a marriage. If the whole point of marriage is about procreation then why allow sterile people that those that don’t want kids to get married? And don’t say that it’s because they could have kids in the right circumstances because that isn’t how it works, if marriage is only about procreation then only people who can and want to have kids should be allowed to marry.

Blitzwing, old sport…

Please do not ask me a question and then limit my answer. That is rude and not very intelligent.

Procreation is the result of sexual intercourse. That is what sexual intercourse is for. It feels good…so we do it and procreate children.

Sterile people marry because it is not their fault they are sterile. They can adopt.

For those who “don’t want kids”…why marry? Living together is acceptable in today’s secular society.

The Catholic Church is pretty firm on marriage and children. If you want to be married in the Church, and can procreate…YOU WILL HAVE CHILDREN.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Thanks for the straightforward response. But I think it’s pretty clear that the Catholic conception of marriage hasn’t been unanimously used throughout written history.

For example, a basic tenet of Catholic marriage is that the bride and groom must both agree to the marriage without being coerced, correct? But marriage used to be a way for a family to profit off of its daughters: daughters would essentially be sold to a suitor for a dowry with the understanding that the families involved were now allied.

The daughter is not given a chance to decline this arrangement. She either agrees to it or is disowned from the family. This objectification of the woman and use of marriage for profit is clearly not the Catholic conception of marriage, yet it came first by a long shot.

Interesting point, but it has no bearing on this discussion.

I believe your example would carry more weight if the family of the daughter insisted she marry the daughter of the other family.

As you say “a basic tenet of Catholic marriage is that the bride and groom must both agree to the marriage without being coerced.”

Notice, bride and groom. Not two grooms…

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Children are neither required nor necessary for a marriage. If the whole point of marriage is about procreation then why allow sterile people that those that don’t want kids to get married? And don’t say that it’s because they could have kids in the right circumstances because that isn’t how it works, if marriage is only about procreation then only people who can and want to have kids should be allowed to marry.

Hello Blitzwing:

Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of what it means for marriage to be oriented towards procreation. While I agree with you that children are neither required nor necessary for a marriage to be valid, it is a necessary part of marriage that the union of the two people be naturally oriented towards procreation, whether or not in any given situation, a particular man and woman in a marriage could actually produce children. The fact is that a man and a woman are naturally oriented in their physical makeup in such a way that - without any outside interference (i.e. infertility, disease, birth control, aging, etc.) - their act of physical (i.e. marital) union is capable of producing new life. To the contrary, no matter how loving a same-sex couple may be, their physical union is not naturally oriented toward producing life. Because this orientation towards life is a fundamental characteristic of all “marriage” (whether polygamous or monogamous) as it has been understood in all societies from the beginning of days, its very nature excludes same-sex unions.

It is only because in modern times the act of procreation has been artificially separated so completely from marriage that we can even have a discussion about whether or not same-sex unions could be called a marriage. This is not a matter of unjust discrimination against people who self-identify as “gay.” It is a matter of letting people know that marriage is what it is, and by it’s very nature it must be oriented towards procreation.

I agree that IF marriage is nothing more than the union between two people who publicly profess their love and commitment to each other, then it should be open to any two people. But you should be just as willing to concede that this “conventional wisdom” definition is fundamentally different from how marriage has been understood through the ages, up until the last 10 years or so. And if the definition can change, then marriage is subject to redefinition at whim, provided that “society” and “conventional wisdom” is willing to tolerate the change.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Thanks for the straightforward response. But I think it’s pretty clear that the Catholic conception of marriage hasn’t been unanimously used throughout written history.

Hello Oreoracle (clever e-moniker by the way):

I think you’re chasing a red herring with your assertion that the Catholic Church is somehow trying to enforce dogmas or doctrines concerning the sacrament of marriage on society. That is not the case. The Catholic position against recognizing a same-sex union as if it were a marriage is rooted in nature and not revealed doctrine. The nature of “marriage” (monogamous or polygamous) has always been oriented towards the creation of human life. It is so much rooted in this understanding that the physical act between a man and woman that can result in new life has long been commonly referred to by Catholics and non-Catholics alike as the “marital act.” Even ancient forced or arranged marriages (pagan and non-pagan) that were used to “tie families together” were effective because the marriage implied the creation of mutual heirs.

Oreoracle:

For example, a basic tenet of Catholic marriage is that the bride and groom must both agree to the marriage without being coerced, correct? But marriage used to be a way for a family to profit off of its daughters: daughters would essentially be sold to a suitor for a dowry with the understanding that the families involved were now allied.

This is not relevant to the objection that Catholics have to same-sex unions being called “marriages.” The basis for the Catholic objection arises from the fact that a same-sex union (no matter how loving) is not a union that is open to the possibility of procreation. This openness is a fundamental and natural part of marriage as it has been understood throughout history, separate and apart from any Catholic doctrine, moral teaching, or ecclesial discipline. It is how all societies have seen marriage up to the present time.

Oreoracle:

The daughter is not given a chance to decline this arrangement. She either agrees to it or is disowned from the family. This objectification of the woman and use of marriage for profit is clearly not the Catholic conception of marriage, yet it came first by a long shot.

Again, the fact that marriages occurred before the Incarnation, and that morality differed from modern understanding is not under dispute. The question is not whether “immoral” marriages took place in the past. As you point out, they did. The fundamental problem with recognizing same-sex unions as “marriages” is not that they are immoral (although differences of opinion on this point tend to blur the true objection), but that they are not naturally oriented towards procreation. Immoral “forced” arranged marriages happen today. The Church objects to these marriages as immoral, and they are deemed invalid, but they are marriages in a natural sense (i.e. to the extent they are oriented towards procreation).

I’d like to throw the question back to you on arranged marriages. Would you please show me where, in any culture, at any time before the present, a “same-sex marriage” has ever been arranged between families. I have searched and honestly don’t think you can find a single one. Why do you think that is so?

Peace,
Robert

 

[gracepoole]

Here are four reasons I offered in a previous thread a couple of months ago: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11560498&postcount=528

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Here are four reasons I offered in a previous thread a couple of months ago: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11560498&postcount=528

Hello Grace:

Respectfully, I see the issue not as denying to two people the right to marry each other because of their sexual orientation. Rather, I see it as speaking plainly and truthfully that “marriage” by its very nature is more than just the public recognition of a union between two people. It has always been (at least until this point in time) an institution that exists to promote and protect the raising of children by their natural parents. Not only is a same sex union by its very nature cut off from meeting this goal, but in fact children raised by a same-sex couple (no matter how good or loving the couple) deny that child the right to at least one natural parent.

1. I don’t believe Christ ever spoke against homosexuality. Even if I accept that He did (and I don’t), I definitely don’t believe He ever spoke against homosexuals in committed relationships.

Whether homosexuality is immoral or not is not dispositive of the issue of gay marriage. As I noted above, the fundamental objection to recognizing same-sex unions as marriages is not based on the immorality of the act, but the fact that the homosexual union itself is not life-generating in its very nature. This is the basis of marriage (an act that is life-giving). Set aside morality from the issue. It only confuses the real objection.

2. I am persuaded by the evidence that demonstrates the benefits to society that come from same-sex marriage (e.g., increased economic stability, lessened mental health care concerns among LGBT citizens, increased stability for children of LGBT parents, etc.).

There is still very little in the way of convincing and unbiased long-term studies that show the benefits of same-sex unions. Even so, the question is not whether such unions have positive or negative impacts, but whether they can rightly be called marriages, when the offspring that are raised by same-sex couples are by definition NOT the product of that union.

3. I reject the notion that homosexuality is “unnatural.” The OP notes that God created both men and women and yes, procreation is possible when both sexes come together. The leap to then say that because procreation isn’t possible via homosexual unions homosexuality is unnatural is completely unsatisfactory.

It’s not a leap to say that homosexual unions are not naturally oriented towards procreation. The term is not meant to be understood in a pejoratively. It is a precise way of discerning the real distinction between a male-female union (naturally oriented towards procreation - and continuing the human race) and male-male and female-female unions (NOT naturally oriented towards procreation and the continuation of the human race). Please do not infer from anything I have written that I look down on people with same-sex attraction. My objection is not to letting people live the lifestyle they want to live. I only object to ongoing redefinition of the term “marriage” to describe a union that is not naturally oriented towards the generation of offspring. Doing so takes real marriage and makes it something far less spectacular than what it really is. It is cheapened for everybody.

4. I have no interest in barring homosexuals from enjoying committed, stable unions.

Nor do I. I object to the extent that even a committed stable same-sex union is redefined as a “marriage” when they are by their very nature something altogether different. (And I’m making the distinction here without a hint of moral judgment. I’m just stating the obvious difference. Marriages are oriented towards creating a parental unit that raises the next generation. Same-sex unions cannot create life, and to the extent they use outside assistance like a surrogate or artificial ensemination to create new life they not only deny the exclusivity of the very union they publicly profess, but they deny that new life at least one biological parent. I don’t think this happens maliciously, but it does happen, and with greater frequency as “gay marriage” becomes more accepted.

Peace,
Robert

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Here are four reasons I offered in a previous thread a couple of months ago: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11560498&postcount=528

No plea for invincible ignorance therefore?

 

[djames99]

Why do some Catholics support “Gay Marriage”

Because they have decided they don’t need the Catholic Church.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Hello Blitzwing:

Your argument is based on a misunderstanding of what it means for marriage to be oriented towards procreation. While I agree with you that children are neither required nor necessary for a marriage to be valid, it is a necessary part of marriage that the union of the two people be naturally oriented towards procreation, whether or not in any given situation, a particular man and woman in a marriage could actually produce children. The fact is that a man and a woman are naturally oriented in their physical makeup in such a way that - without any outside interference (i.e. infertility, disease, birth control, aging, etc.) - their act of physical (i.e. marital) union is capable of producing new life. To the contrary, no matter how loving a same-sex couple may be, their physical union is not naturally oriented toward producing life. Because this orientation towards life is a fundamental characteristic of all “marriage” (whether polygamous or monogamous) as it has been understood in all societies from the beginning of days, its very nature excludes same-sex unions.

It is only because in modern times the act of procreation has been artificially separated so completely from marriage that we can even have a discussion about whether or not same-sex unions could be called a marriage. This is not a matter of unjust discrimination against people who self-identify as “gay.” It is a matter of letting people know that marriage is what it is, and by it’s very nature it must be oriented towards procreation.

I agree that IF marriage is nothing more than the union between two people who publicly profess their love and commitment to each other, then it should be open to any two people. But you should be just as willing to concede that this “conventional wisdom” definition is fundamentally different from how marriage has been understood through the ages, up until the last 10 years or so. And if the definition can change, then marriage is subject to redefinition at whim, provided that “society” and “conventional wisdom” is willing to tolerate the change.

Peace,
Robert

Hello Oreoracle (clever e-moniker by the way):

I think you’re chasing a red herring with your assertion that the Catholic Church is somehow trying to enforce dogmas or doctrines concerning the sacrament of marriage on society. That is not the case. The Catholic position against recognizing a same-sex union as if it were a marriage is rooted in nature and not revealed doctrine. The nature of “marriage” (monogamous or polygamous) has always been oriented towards the creation of human life. It is so much rooted in this understanding that the physical act between a man and woman that can result in new life has long been commonly referred to by Catholics and non-Catholics alike as the “marital act.” Even ancient forced or arranged marriages (pagan and non-pagan) that were used to “tie families together” were effective because the marriage implied the creation of mutual heirs.

This is not relevant to the objection that Catholics have to same-sex unions being called “marriages.” The basis for the Catholic objection arises from the fact that a same-sex union (no matter how loving) is not a union that is open to the possibility of procreation. This openness is a fundamental and natural part of marriage as it has been understood throughout history, separate and apart from any Catholic doctrine, moral teaching, or ecclesial discipline. It is how all societies have seen marriage up to the present time.

Again, the fact that marriages occurred before the Incarnation, and that morality differed from modern understanding is not under dispute. The question is not whether “immoral” marriages took place in the past. As you point out, they did. The fundamental problem with recognizing same-sex unions as “marriages” is not that they are immoral (although differences of opinion on this point tend to blur the true objection), but that they are not naturally oriented towards procreation. Immoral “forced” arranged marriages happen today. The Church objects to these marriages as immoral, and they are deemed invalid, but they are marriages in a natural sense (i.e. to the extent they are oriented towards procreation).

I’d like to throw the question back to you on arranged marriages. Would you please show me where, in any culture, at any time before the present, a “same-sex marriage” has ever been arranged between families. I have searched and honestly don’t think you can find a single one. Why do you think that is so?

Peace,
Robert

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Because they have decided they don’t need the Catholic Church.

Or, have replaced true compassion and ideals for false ones.
,

 

[innertide]

Or, have replaced true compassion and ideals for false ones.
,

or perhaps some catholics realize that the elites of the church are actually not right about every single thing they think they are right about.

 

[CaptFun]

Because he who is without sin must throw the first stone. It’s not so much support as it is tolerance.

Throwing stones (aggressively pursuing justice against another when the one pursuing is guilty of equal or greater things) is one thing. A bad thing.

Tolerating the latest popular nonsense (however destructive) is another (bad thing).

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when people ***will not tolerate sound doctrine ***but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers

4 and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.

How this “non-thing” ever got on anyone’s agenda is a puzzlement. But now, all of a sudden, here it is - and MUST be talked about each day (like medieval people used to pray the Angelus, it seems). Socially (in the secular world) the prevailing wind is that if you are “good” you DO tolerate … then accept … then favor … then defend … then PROMOTE “Gay Marriage” or “Same Sex Marriage”. Just two years ago Barack Obama had not gone that far … and Joe Biden’s sudden popping off on the subject looked like
a misguided malaprop that might cost the incumbents the White House.

When a Catholic that well known weighs in, gets no push back from Catholic leaders, and signals it is “an OK position” for a Catholic to take … some DO take that position.

And with other Catholics mouthing the “pro-choice” line, in a case where children are deliberately killed – why, “looking the other way”, shrugging, keeping silent, or lightly accepting “gay marriage” (as it increasingly becomes legal in more and more places) seems like a much more minor thing.

Most people aren’t inclined to go Westboro Baptist Church on people, even if they do oppose SSM.

Add to this how Catholics in the public eye who** do** speak out against it as a social danger are pilloried in the press and abandoned by their allies to twist in the wind … and it is not surprising that the lukewarm, go with the flow kind of so-called “mainstream Catholic” seems to support the “issue”. Even if it is only by their disinterested silence when the topic comes up. As it increasingly does.

Like here for instance.

 

[JimG]

or perhaps some catholics realize that the elites of the church are actually not right about every single thing they think they are right about.

And yet marriage has always been between man and woman since the dawn of civilization. Even polygamy is between men and women. Societies have often tolerated or accepted homosexual acts, but they have never called it marriage.

Perhaps that is because man and woman are designed for each other? Perhaps because societies recognized a state interest in the continuation of the human race? Marriage existed long before the Catholic Church. It was always between man and woman. Even primitive societies can recognize the basics of human anatomy and biology.

 

[Edward_H]

The answer to the question “why do they” is false compassion.

 

[innertide]

And yet marriage has always been between man and woman since the dawn of civilization. Even polygamy is between men and women. Societies have often tolerated or accepted homosexual acts, but they have never called it marriage.

Perhaps that is because man and woman are designed for each other? Perhaps because societies recognized a state interest in the continuation of the human race? Marriage existed long before the Catholic Church. It was always between man and woman. Even primitive societies can recognize the basics of human anatomy and biology.

perhaps except society is welcoming polgamy more an more with shows like " sister wives " , and the continuation of the human race is a farce as the world is over populated as it is, when we reach a world wide population of 100,000 or less then i will jump on that bandwagon. And even though primitive societies can recognize some things, natural law and promitive societies can not answer why people for any reason are homosexual either by nature or choice, so chanting natural law and waving the banner of all the rules of the church doesn’t answer anything, all it is more cannon fodder for people to keep debating end on end to keep egos feeling good.

If God was so worried about homosexuals and them marrying, i could wager a bet He would have taken the time to be very specific about it instead of using glorious mysticism to interpret what He meant.

Homosexuals are the absolute last problem this world should ever worry about.

 

[Edward_H]

perhaps except society is welcoming polgamy more an more with shows like " sister wives " , and the continuation of the human race is a farce as the world is over populated as it is, when we reach a world wide population of 100,000 or less then i will jump on that bandwagon. And even though primitive societies can recognize some things, natural law and promitive societies can not answer why people for any reason are homosexual either by nature or choice, so chanting natural law and waving the banner of all the rules of the church doesn’t answer anything, all it is more cannon fodder for people to keep debating end on end to keep egos feeling good.

If God was so worried about homosexuals and them marrying, i could wager a bet He would have taken the time to be very specific about it instead of using glorious mysticism to interpret what He meant.

Homosexuals are the absolute last problem this world should ever worry about.

Human pride and selfishness will always drive questions into God’s word. When Jesus gave us His definition of marriage in the Gospel…in His own words…He actually was quite clear. “Man and woman”.

It takes a dose of pride to drive a question into that.

 

[Oreoracle]

I think you’re chasing a red herring with your assertion that the Catholic Church is somehow trying to enforce dogmas or doctrines concerning the sacrament of marriage on society.

I didn’t say that. I believe that, sure, but I didn’t say it.

The nature of “marriage” (monogamous or polygamous) has always been oriented towards the creation of human life.

In the Catholic conception perhaps. But as I’ve already pointed out, the primary concern before Catholic marriages was wealth. Married couples were expected to have children, of course, but this was done more for the continuation of bloodlines than for the sanctity of human life, a fact you allude to here:

Even ancient forced or arranged marriages (pagan and non-pagan) that were used to “tie families together” were effective because the marriage implied the creation of mutual heirs.

But again, the intent is clearly very different. They didn’t have kids because they thought human lives were sacred, they did it to preserve their families’ prominence.

The basis for the Catholic objection arises from the fact that a same-sex union (no matter how loving) is not a union that is open to the possibility of procreation.

And as Blitzwing pointed out (if I recall correctly), marriages between the impotent and the infertile also aren’t open to procreation. I suspect you’ll argue as others have that men and women can have kids “in principle” so the fact that a particular couple can’t bear children is not an issue.

This is where our moralities diverge; I am a consequentialist (consequence-oriented) whereas Christian morality is deontic (principle-oriented). When a moral code effectively ignores consequences in favor of generalized principles, arguments like the above can be made.

Even so, why would it be such a bad thing to broaden the definition of marriage? There are other aspects of marriage that make it important, such as family stability, that can be realized in gay unions.

I’d like to throw the question back to you on arranged marriages. Would you please show me where, in any culture, at any time before the present, a “same-sex marriage” has ever been arranged between families.

The argument you’re turning back around on me was made in response to a poster who insisted that the Catholic definition was “best”. I’m not arguing for the best definition, as there is simply no such thing. Definitions are tools, and like any other tools, what is best depends on the situation. If you want more children, Catholic marriage is an option. But if we wish to emphasize matters such as family stability, gay marriages can work just as well.

I have searched and honestly don’t think you can find a single one. Why do you think that is so?

Maintaining population size and using kids as financial assets used to be more important than it is now. So the simple answer is: they didn’t exist because the economics of the time didn’t necessitate their existence.