Why don't we come up with a new version of marriage for gay people?

  • Thread starter Thread starter KevWK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KevWK

Guest
Since the Church is against gay marriage because marriage is the union between a man and woman, why don’t we come up with a union that is not called marriage that is between the same sexes? The Church states that homosexual activity is “unnatural” but God made them homosexual! Plus I read somewhere (I think it was on here) that humans have something in their brain that gives them emotions or something about sex while for animals it is just instinct. I know that same sex marriage isn’t exactly procreation but the couple could adopt a child that could really use a good home. What harm does that do? In my opinion, two people who love each other very much does not degrade the sanctity of marriage, people who cheat and treat their spouse badly do. Also, is it ok in the Church’s eyes for a homosexual to have a partner that they love as long as they are not married and they never have sex? Anyway, for those of you who are strictly against gay marriage, I think there are WAY BETTER things to worry about in today’s world than two people loving each other. Don’t we need more love in this world?! Anyway, that’s just my opinion and I am proud of it.
 
KevWK said:
Since the Church is against gay marriage because marriage is the union between a man and woman, why don’t we come up with a union that is not called marriage that is between the same sexes? The Church states that homosexual activity is “unnatural” but God made them homosexual! Plus I read somewhere (I think it was on here) that humans have something in their brain that gives them emotions or something about sex while for animals it is just instinct. I know that same sex marriage isn’t exactly procreation but the couple could adopt a child that could really use a good home. What harm does that do? In my opinion, two people who love each other very much does not degrade the sanctity of marriage, people who cheat and treat their spouse badly do. Also, is it ok in the Church’s eyes for a homosexual to have a partner that they love as long as they are not married and they never have sex? Anyway, for those of you who are strictly against gay marriage, I think there are WAY BETTER things to worry about in today’s world than two people loving each other. Don’t we need more love in this world?! Anyway, that’s just my opinion and I am proud of it.
Click to expand...
One point I agree with - and I would like to reverse your question - why do homosexuals insist on getting married and not seeking some other forms of unions in the first place?
 
KevWK said:
Since the Church is against gay marriage because marriage is the union between a man and woman, why don’t we come up with a union that is not called marriage that is between the same sexes? The Church states that homosexual activity is “unnatural” but God made them homosexual! Plus I read somewhere (I think it was on here) that humans have something in their brain that gives them emotions or something about sex while for animals it is just instinct. I know that same sex marriage isn’t exactly procreation but the couple could adopt a child that could really use a good home. What harm does that do? In my opinion, two people who love each other very much does not degrade the sanctity of marriage, people who cheat and treat their spouse badly do. Also, is it ok in the Church’s eyes for a homosexual to have a partner that they love as long as they are not married and they never have sex? Anyway, for those of you who are strictly against gay marriage, I think there are WAY BETTER things to worry about in today’s world than two people loving each other. Don’t we need more love in this world?! Anyway, that’s just my opinion and I am proud of it.
Click to expand...
Sorry. They are to abstain, for life. How in the world could we ever bless disordered unions involving grave sin. Nope.
 
KevWK said:
Since the Church is against gay marriage because marriage is the union between a man and woman, why don’t we come up with a union that is not called marriage that is between the same sexes? The Church states that homosexual activity is “unnatural” but God made them homosexual! Plus I read somewhere (I think it was on here) that humans have something in their brain that gives them emotions or something about sex while for animals it is just instinct. I know that same sex marriage isn’t exactly procreation but the couple could adopt a child that could really use a good home. What harm does that do? In my opinion, two people who love each other very much does not degrade the sanctity of marriage, people who cheat and treat their spouse badly do. Also, is it ok in the Church’s eyes for a homosexual to have a partner that they love as long as they are not married and they never have sex? Anyway, for those of you who are strictly against gay marriage, I think there are WAY BETTER things to worry about in today’s world than two people loving each other. Don’t we need more love in this world?! Anyway, that’s just my opinion and I am proud of it.
Click to expand...
Are you a Catholic? It’s probably not a good idea to boast that you hold an opinion in opposition to the church. Please pray on that one.

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

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that God “makes” homosexuals but he certainly allows Same Sex Attraction to develop. We want to help people in that situation focus their lives toward the greater good that God is directing them to.
It is not a sin for a person with SSA to have friends of the same sex but they may not cultivate romantic relationships with or without sex.

Marriage is a Sacrament. We only have 7 of those. It’s a very good thing to protect and defend the Sacraments of the Catholic Faith.
 
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Man cannot redefine what he has not created; God created marriage when He created our first parents. On this truth I will not yield. Deal with it.
 
Danuska said:
One point I agree with - and I would like to reverse your question - why do homosexuals insist on getting married and not seeking some other forms of unions in the first place?
Click to expand...
I think two points need to be made. First, homosexuals are not demanding that churches be forced to marry them. The second point is that homosexuals are demanding equal civil rights. The secular legal contract of marriage carries a vast number of legal, economic and social rights. This is what they want.

Gays are not seeking something similar to the legal contract of marriage, but called something else, because any such thing would necessarily be less than marriage. Such unions would lack the legal history of marriage and would require an ongoing legal struggle to force equal recognition (by employers, insurance companies, sheriff’s departments etc.) of of this new non-marriage marriage.
 
I would be abhorred if the Catholic Church created some type of blessed homosexual civil union, but I feel if the secular government decides to, then so be it. It’s not like the Catholic Church recognizes civil marraiges anyways.
 
The best solution, in my mind, is to disassociate the civil benefits of visitation rights, tax benefits and such, from the religious institute of marriage. Call it a “Household Pact” or something like that, and extend to anybody who fits the criteria.

That would ensure that marriage remains a religious institution, without making life miserable for all concerned. You can make a case that the common good requires it. After all, there will be homosexuals who are sexually active, and the existence of a permanent partnership encourages them to be monogamous, rather than promiscuous, which will reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
 
Eucharisted said:
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Man cannot redefine what he has not created; God created marriage when He created our first parents. On this truth I will not yield. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
I can’t add to that…👍

There is NO SUCH THING as ‘marriage’ between homosexuals…it’s STERILE, and it’s UNNATURAL!

Why is it so hard to understand? :rolleyes:
 
Lujack said:
The best solution, in my mind, is to disassociate the civil benefits of visitation rights, tax benefits and such, from the religious institute of marriage. Call it a “Household Pact” or something like that, and extend to anybody who fits the criteria.

That would ensure that marriage remains a religious institution, without making life miserable for all concerned. You can make a case that the common good requires it. After all, there will be homosexuals who are sexually active, and the existence of a permanent partnership encourages them to be monogamous, rather than promiscuous, which will reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Click to expand...
Well put, Lujack. 👍
 
KevWK said:
Since the Church is against gay marriage because marriage is the union between a man and woman, why don’t we come up with a union that is not called marriage that is between the same sexes?
Click to expand...
Whatever you call it - would the act be any different?
 
barb_finnegan said:
I can’t add to that…👍

There is NO SUCH THING as ‘marriage’ between homosexuals…it’s STERILE, and it’s UNNATURAL!

Why is it so hard to understand? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So like what was already said. We just won’t call it marriage. We can call it civil union or household pact. And the Church doesn’t have to participate. (another great thing about the seperation of Church and State)
 
withwind said:
Whatever you call it - would the act be any different?
Click to expand...
Do you really think it’s not happening, with or without it? Divorce is another thing that is not inline with Church teaching, but it happens everyday. We as Catholics, like Christ did, can say our piece and if they don’t want to accept the truth, we have to move on.
 
CatholicLeft said:
I would be abhorred if the Catholic Church created some type of blessed homosexual civil union, but I feel if the secular government decides to, then so be it.** It’s not like the Catholic Church recognizes civil marraiges anyways.**
Click to expand...
This is not true - the Church does recognize them as “good and natural” marriages, they are just not sacramental.

~Liza
 
lizaanne said:
This is not true - the Church does recognize them as “good and natural” marriages, they are just not sacramental.

~Liza
Click to expand...
Provide me with something please , that shows that to be true. Are you saying that the church considers invalid marriages to be “good”? I understood that only non catholics who marry civilly had marriages that were natural and good. How could something that is a mortal sin for a catholic be good?
 
CatholicLeft said:
Do you really think it’s not happening, with or without it? Divorce is another thing that is not inline with Church teaching, but it happens everyday. We as Catholics, like Christ did, can say our piece and if they don’t want to accept the truth, we have to move on.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand your question - what is “it” that is not happening with or without it? Did I confuse you from my previous post?
 
Perhaps we should let God come up with it. 🙂 Oh, wait - He already did. Marriage is between one male and one female. That’s it. Simple. Nothing else meets the test.
 
Lujack said:
The best solution, in my mind, is to disassociate the civil benefits of visitation rights, tax benefits and such, from the religious institute of marriage. Call it a “Household Pact” or something like that, and extend to anybody who fits the criteria.

That would ensure that marriage remains a religious institution, without making life miserable for all concerned. You can make a case that the common good requires it. After all, there will be homosexuals who are sexually active, and the existence of a permanent partnership encourages them to be monogamous, rather than promiscuous, which will reduce the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Click to expand...
The religious institute of marriage is the best environment for a child to be brought up in. This is partly why the government has laws protecting this union. A child needs a mother AND a father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Why would anyone in their right mind want to encourage people to purposely put a child in a situation where they are not brought up by both parents? It is already bad enough out there.

And if you really believe that permanent partnership would encourage monogomy in these relationships then you are truly a little naive. I don’t buy it.:cool:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top