Why does it matter? (Gay marriage)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Susansmum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Offenses against chastity

2351
Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.
Chastity and homosexuality
2357
Homosexual-ity refers to relations (period) ( not homosexual tendencies) between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents
homosexual acts** as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. ( not SSM, not civil unions, not parties, not TV shows, not anything that would show approval of their homosexuality)
2358
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. (Acceptance of them, not homosexuality, as it states above can never be approved of, under any circumstance)
Every sign of unjust ( doesn’t say there are not some just reasons to discriminate, as in SSM) discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of **disinterested **friendship( this means that they should be around people who support chastity, not promoting or supporting homosexuality, a sinful action), by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

These are the teachings of the Catholic Church, not everything we have to understand, but everything you have to believe. Believe it all or none of it. No Cafeteria Catholics, other wise you would be protestants and your welcome to leave and to join one of those Church’s, that’s your free will, God doesn’t force his love on anyone, but you will never change the Catholic Church to suit to your fancy. We are 2000 years old and still standing and we preach in and out of season. Jesus said people hated me first, so they will hate us too that stand up for the truth. Then we will bring glory to God.

To those who promote or support born that way theory
It’s doesn’t make a bit of difference if anyone was born that way. Predisposition to sin we all have. Some worse than others. It is not an excuse to sin. We don’t act on our impulses that would bring us to any sexual sin.
Then we would be like an animal with no intelligence to not know right from wrong.


** We don’t go along to get along and go with the flow. Flow of what?**
You want people to be damned or in heaven. How uncharitable would it be not to care about someone’s salvation to lie to them so as not to hurt their feelings. Feelings that could cause them to follow the path to hell? False compassion is not true love. Love in truth, not in lies.
GB
Again, HOMOSEXUAL ACTS are what are being addressed.

Can for example, TWO OLDER WOMEN, both heterosexual, both without living family or children, enter into a LEGAL CIVIL UNION, in order to create a family unit and obtain legal and financial rights and benefits, so they can take care of each other in sickness and in health, make medical decisions for each other, gain tax advantages, with them NOT ENGAGING IN SEXUAL ACTIVITIES. Is this permissible?
 
Again, HOMOSEXUAL ACTS are what are being addressed.

Can for example, TWO OLDER WOMEN, both heterosexual, both without living family or children, enter into a LEGAL CIVIL UNION, in order to create a family unit and obtain legal and financial rights and benefits, so they can take care of each other in sickness and in health, make medical decisions for each other, gain tax advantages, with them NOT ENGAGING IN SEXUAL ACTIVITIES. Is this permissible?
Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but It sounds like you are describing two heterosexual friends taking some form of a wedding vow to each other. I’m not sure what you are trying to get at. If they aren’t trying to redefine marriage then the Church doesn’t have a problem with it. No one ever said that they were against two friends who live together as roomates.
 
Again, HOMOSEXUAL ACTS are what are being addressed.

Can for example, TWO OLDER WOMEN, both heterosexual, both without living family or children, enter into a LEGAL CIVIL UNION, in order to create a family unit and obtain legal and financial rights and benefits, so they can take care of each other in sickness and in health, make medical decisions for each other, gain tax advantages, with them NOT ENGAGING IN SEXUAL ACTIVITIES. Is this permissible?
Texas,

I have read all your posts and understand your situation as you present it. You present a unique situation that requires understanding. Understand that gay marriage is a hot topic that has little to do with those that have unique situations as yours and the thrust is oriented towards the LGBT groups forcing legislation for other than what you have described.

You will get nothing but resistance in your plight to cause understanding because there can be no understanding in light of Church teaching that does not recognize or advocate the unique situation.

Welcome back to the Church,🙂 stop smoking:thumbsup:
 
Plain and simple; God made woman for man and man for woman. Period. Just look at the history of ancient times when anything goes…The society emploded.
 
Again, HOMOSEXUAL ACTS are what are being addressed.

Can for example, TWO OLDER WOMEN, both heterosexual, both without living family or children, enter into a LEGAL CIVIL UNION, in order to create a family unit and obtain legal and financial rights and benefits, so they can take care of each other in sickness and in health, make medical decisions for each other, gain tax advantages, with them NOT ENGAGING IN SEXUAL ACTIVITIES. Is this permissible?
Cwltexas, no such option should be available in the first place. The state should neither offer marriage for homosexuals nor civil unions, because both legitimize sinful relationships, but if I had to choose between the two, civil unions are less offensive, as they do not degrade marriage to the same degree.

If the state offered civil unions it must have some idea what constitutes such a union, and whatever that is, it would have to be more than simply the desire of two people to collect government benefits. They would be in effect defrauding the government by misrepresenting their intentions. If the two people are entering into a civil union that goes beyond friendship, and here I am assuming the state will not offer civil unions to declare simple friendships, then I believe the non sexual union is sinful, as it mimics marriage where no marriage is warranted.

Also, if the commonly held belief is that the unions are meant to denote the recognition of the state of a right to engage in a sexual relationship, whether or not the couple ever intend to engage is such a relationship, and incidentally become eligible for government benefits, good Christian people should not enter into such unions, as it would be scandalous to do so.

That’s how I see it, cwltexas. I would stay away from a state-sanctioned union for the purpose of gaining government benefits. God will provide our needs. I do not see God doing so through civil unions.
 
Again, HOMOSEXUAL ACTS are what are being addressed.

Can for example, TWO OLDER WOMEN, both heterosexual, both without living family or children, enter into a LEGAL CIVIL UNION, in order to create a family unit and obtain legal and financial rights and benefits, so they can take care of each other in sickness and in health, make medical decisions for each other, gain tax advantages, with them NOT ENGAGING IN SEXUAL ACTIVITIES. Is this permissible?
Easy Answer:

Yes.

Should it be called a marriage? No.

👍

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
James and Josh,

cwltexas has been banned.
(Just thought you’d want to save your breath.) 🙂
 
James and Josh,

cwltexas has been banned.
(Just thought you’d want to save your breath.) 🙂
I take it he is emerging from that relationship but wants to believe he has finished the process. He is trying to be sincere, but just can’t bring himself to go that extra distance. I suppose we’ve all been there before, not wanting to go that extra distance in some matter. I hope we all keep him in our prayers. It underlines the fact that we are truly in spiritual combat. The enemy is you know who, not cwltexas.
 
Huh…yet again I agree with what DexUK says on this matter.
I CHOOSE to be Catholic,believe and live a Catholic life to the best of my ability(I’m always learning)😉
I respect and love my Gay friends and I do not impose my religion,life style on them.
But you would let them impose their lifestyle on Catholics by redefining marriage? I’m sorry, but from the Catholic perspective the issue is not about homosexuality. It is about marriage and family.

What matters most is that marriage - by its nature - unites a man and a woman to the children that they may produce. Gay couples do not need, and cannot be protected by such an institution because they cannot produce children by that union. That is not a moral judgment against people with same sex attraction who want to live openly with someone they love. But it is the recognition of a fact - marriage is about children. Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples would decouple marriage from children altogether. That is the real risk. And it comes not from gay people per se. It comes from redefining the institution.

Peace,
Robert
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top