Why Must We Fight Against Same-Sex Marriage?

[Seeker1961]

You can not lead people to God by legally affirming sinful behavior.

Where did I say anything about affirming behavior?

All I’m saying is that what we’re doing doesn’t seem to be working. I don’t see legions of gay people saying “oh wow, the church people say my behavior is wrong, I’d better stop”. I don’t see legions of divorced people running for annulments. I don’t see our churches filling to capacity with people for Masses, nor do I see huge lines for Confession.

Yet, something worked for me. I was led back to the Church by good Catholics who showed me the love of God. I met Priests and Sisters who taught me about Christ’s sacrifice, what He was willing to do out of love for me. They didn’t sugar coat the law or Commandments, but they did make sure I understood why those laws existed, that those laws were part of the way God showed His love for me. Understanding the love made me want to obey the law.

The law without the love is legalism, and if I read my Bible right, Jesus wasn’t too happy with those that focused on the law to the exclusion of the love. I don’t want us to lose sight of the main thing and push people away that we should be drawing in.

 

[Stephen168]

My point is that we can’t have laws recognizing same-sex “marriage” because there is no such thing. It’s not like we’re legislating something to purposely exclude people.

Marriage is certainly founded in a biological principle: marriage is ordered toward procreation.

 

[estesbob]

Where did I say anything about affirming behavior?

All I’m saying is that what we’re doing doesn’t seem to be working. I don’t see legions of gay people saying “oh wow, the church people say my behavior is wrong, I’d better stop”. I don’t see legions of divorced people running for annulments. I don’t see our churches filling to capacity with people for Masses, nor do I see huge lines for Confession.

Yet, something worked for me. I was led back to the Church by good Catholics who showed me the love of God. I met Priests and Sisters who taught me about Christ’s sacrifice, what He was willing to do out of love for me. They didn’t sugar coat the law or Commandments, but they did make sure I understood why those laws existed, that those laws were part of the way God showed His love for me. Understanding the love made me want to obey the law.

The law without the love is legalism, and if I read my Bible right, Jesus wasn’t too happy with those that focused on the law to the exclusion of the love. I don’t want us to lose sight of the main thing and push people away that we should be drawing in.

And we show our Love for those afflicted with SSA by NEVER supporting laws and regulations that affirm homosexual. Lets also keep in mind that Catholics are not calling for any change in the law-merely insisting that we NOT change the definition of marriage to encompass deviant sexual behavior

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Therefore man did not marry until there was a state.

Men and women did not come together, create and raise children until there was a state to license it.

You seem to be locked into an ‘either-or’ universe with respect to marriage, therefore leading you to contradict yourself as in this post. Why can’t it be both? That is the only suggestion that makes sense.

 

[Stephen168]

You seem to be locked into an ‘either-or’ universe with respect to marriage, therefore leading you to contradict yourself as in this post. Why can’t it be both? That is the only suggestion that makes sense.

The contradiction was not mine. Yes, I’m locked into an either-or universe with respect to marriage. It is either a natural human condition or it is an invention of the state. Because there was man before there was a state, I believe is it a natural human condition. The state regulating marriage doesn’t change was it is.

 

[Seeker1961]

And we show our Love for those afflicted with SSA by NEVER supporting laws and regulations that affirm homosexual. Lets also keep in mind that Catholics are not calling for any change in the law-merely insisting that we NOT change the definition of marriage to encompass deviant sexual behavior

The goal as I understand it, is to lead people to Christ, and because of Christ’s love and through His grace their lives are changed. My concern is that the approach that starts with all capital letters and the word “deviant” isn’t going to further that goal. It clearly hasn’t resulted in any huge stampedes so far. What’s the harm in taking a look at how we approach things and seeing if we can’t find a way to communicate the message in a way that gets us closer to the real goal?

Instead of talking in military terms about “fighting” and “wars” and using words like “deviant”, maybe we can find a way to talk about a God that loves us ALL with such an overpowering, unending love that we with our tiny little brains can’t even comprehend it. Maybe more of that message would lead to less need to talk about “fighting” and “wars”. That love has the power to conquer sin- all of our objections and outrage have no power to do that.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

The contradiction was not mine. Yes, I’m locked into an either-or universe with respect to marriage. It is either a natural human condition or it is an invention of the state. Because there was man before there was a state, I believe is it a natural human condition. The state regulating marriage doesn’t change was it is.

You are not defending your original statement, and instead have jumped to something else that is closer to the truth.

Here is the statement that I originally referenced, and that I am interested in you defending: It is a human matter not a civil matter because man preceded the state.

May the state recognize what is a ‘natural human condition’? Or must it deny that there is any ‘natural human condition’? If the state is allowed to recognize this natural human condition, then isn’t that recognition a civil matter? If it must deny that there is a natural human condition, then doesn’t that make the state wrong? Perhaps there is a third option, that the state must remain mum on this natural human condition, neither recognizing it, nor denying its existence. If the state must do this, what requires this?

 

[Stephen168]

You are not defending your original statement, and instead have jumped to something else that is closer to the truth.

Here is the statement that I originally referenced, and that I am interested in you defending: It is a human matter not a civil matter because man preceded the state.

The word ‘matter’ seems to be used to mean “defined by” in this thread. I could be wrong but that is how I took it. To clarify the statement you want me to defend: Marriage is defined by human nature and not by civil authority (the state) because man was marrying before there was a state. I define marriage as a human arrangement with the purpose of creating and raising children.

May the state recognize what is a ‘natural human condition’?

Yes

Or must it deny that there is any ‘natural human condition’?

The state seems to be capable of anything.

If the state is allowed to recognize this natural human condition, then isn’t that recognition a civil matter?

Are you asking if the state can pass a law to change nature; change the value of pi? No. They may try, but it is silly. If you are asking if the state codified pi in law would that make pi a civil reality and not a natural reality? No, pi is natural.

If it must deny that there is a natural human condition, then doesn’t that make the state wrong?

Yes, the state changing the definition of pi makes the state wrong.

Perhaps there is a third option, that the state must remain mum on this natural human condition, neither recognizing it, nor denying its existence. If the state must do this, what requires this?

The question seems backwards to me. Marriage preceded the state, so the question would be: Why did the state feel a need to inject itself into regulating marriage? and now defining what marriage is? Questions I’d like the pro same-sex marriage folks to answer.

 

[someperson555]

You have some basic things wrong, and this is not uncommon for “progressive” Catholics. The Catholic Church fully supports rights for all people: women’s rights, free speech, rights for those with homosexual inclinations, etc.

But notice that those are general ideas. The specific rights and the laws enacted to uphold them are not necessarily absolutes. Those with same-sex attraction are obviously entitled to participate in the public square, and to be treated with the same respect as everyone else. But it’s impossible to extend the rights of marriage to them because they are not participating in any actions which form the foundation of marriage: the biological act which is designed to perhaps result in conception. (Since you are Catholic, I presume that I don’t have to parse words such as “designed.”)

As an analogy, consider the rights of all people to have access to food, shelter, clothing, and health care. The Church is certainly a proponent of those rights. But how a society fulfills those rights is open to debate. I suspect that you are all for socialized health care. Why don’t we then have a national socialized plan for distributing food?

Those kinds of things are where “conservative” and “progressive” Catholics are free to debate. But the idea of homosexual sex is intrinsically evil. Thus, there is no point to debate when it comes to the rights of marriage. So don’t get mad – there is no inconsistency.

do you support religious freedom?
for a long time, I believe up untill the 1950s, the catholic church and catholics all over the world strongly opposed this. the church said that “freedom of conscience is an illusion”, (which is correct after all, but the debate here is not about finding the absolute truth its about the best way to handle a civil matter so that no one will have their rights violated.) since we live in a society where there is religious freedom, we cannot dictate people’s personal morality who are not a part of our religion. therefore we cannot tell a muslim that he has to eat pork, or a protestant that he has to obey the pope. likewise we cannot tell people who and when and how many to marry. if you want to make a case against gay marriage, then you must make it from a biological perspective. (and i have heard good arguments against homosexual marriage from a secular point of view)
wether or not homosexuality is intrinsically evil. the fact is that there are far greater evils in society which must be dealt with first. i have yet see the pope issue an encyclical condemning smoking. i have yet to see a catholic movement calling to outlaw alcohol. yet alcohol and tobacco cause more pain and suffering than two gay people getting married. yet i am to believe that gay marriage is the worst possible thing that could happen to america and that everything up untill now was just great?
i will support the movement to oppose homosexual marriage when i see a catholic movement to ban tobacco.

 

[surritter]

Someperson, I charitably ask you to study the Catholic teachings of moral theology. Tobacco is not intrinsically evil. Homosexual sexual acts are. Which of those two dangers should we educate our brothers and sisters about? Both.
BUT, which one “cries out to God for vengeance”? Homosexual sexual acts. Now do you see the priorities?

However, even if we put the notion of “evil” and “morality” aside, I have clearly explained how marriage is not even possible for two men or two women. Did you re-read the posts discussing the meaning of “ordered toward procreation”? It doesn’t sound like it, because you had another post inquiring about those who are sterile or get married late in life. But guess what – their bodies are still ordered toward procreation, despite their inability to fulfill the end result.

 

[Stephen168]

since we live in a society where there is religious freedom, we cannot dictate people’s personal morality who are not a part of our religion. therefore we cannot tell a muslim that he has to eat pork, or a protestant that he has to obey the pope. likewise we cannot tell people who and when and how many to marry.

We tell muslims that pork is the meat from a pig. We tell Protestants that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. We tell people that marriage is a human arrangement for the purpose of creating and raising children; and we support that definition by telling people they can only be married to one person, over a defined age, of the opposite sex, and not a close relative.

You propose we can not tell anyone who they can marry; then being free to marry anyone is being free to marry ANYONE(S). What is marriage at that point?

 

[someperson555]

Someperson, I charitably ask you to study the Catholic teachings of moral theology. Tobacco is not intrinsically evil. Homosexual sexual acts are. Which of those two dangers should we educate our brothers and sisters about? Both.
BUT, which one “cries out to God for vengeance”? Homosexual sexual acts. Now do you see the priorities?

However, even if we put the notion of “evil” and “morality” aside, I have clearly explained how marriage is not even possible for two men or two women. Did you re-read the posts discussing the meaning of “ordered toward procreation”? It doesn’t sound like it, because you had another post inquiring about those who are sterile or get married late in life. But guess what – their bodies are still ordered toward procreation, despite their inability to fulfill the end result.

or perhaps its the moral theologians who seriously need to re-examine their world views.
but seriously, regardless of what the moral theologians say, how can smoking during pregnancy be a-ok, but homosexuality be “gravely evil”? thats what i dont get, and thats why i feel anger when i start to hear other catholics go on about the “evils” of homosexuality, while staying silent on more serious issues. if you study reality, you will find that smoking and drinking cause far more immorality than homosexaulity or same sex marriage. im sorry i really dont mean to cause controvesry, but it just doesnt make any sense whatsoever. i have read everything you wrote, but sometimes i cant reply to every single comment directed toward me, otherwise id be hogging the thread lol.
let me try a little thought expirement, and please answer honestly and give reasons for your answer. pretend God gave you an option, you could choose to either 1)make all drugs dissapear from the face of the earth forever, or 2) make the phenomena of homosexuality dissapear forever. now honestly, which would you choose? and why?

 

[someperson555]

We tell muslims that pork is the meat from a pig. We tell Protestants that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. We tell people that marriage is a human arrangement for the purpose of creating and raising children; and we support that definition by telling people they can only be married to one person, over a defined age, of the opposite sex, and not a close relative.

You propose we can not tell anyone who they can marry; then being free to marry anyone is being free to marry ANYONE(S). What is marriage at that point?

marriage is and was a spiritual matter. legalizing marriage in society is NOT legalizing it in the church. for us catholics it is not even a question wether or not the church should recognize same sex marriages, because it never did, and probably never will. however we have no right to define marriage for non-catholics.
as for raising children, gay couples can adopt just like single people. in such cases, the gay couple could be of use to society. its better for a kid to grow up with same sex caretakers than in some orphanage…

 

[estesbob]

or perhaps its the moral theologians who seriously need to re-examine their world views.
but seriously, regardless of what the moral theologians say, how can smoking during pregnancy be a-ok, but homosexuality be “gravely evil”? thats what i dont get, and thats why i feel anger when i start to hear other catholics go on about the “evils” of homosexuality, while staying silent on more serious issues. if you study reality, you will find that smoking and drinking cause far more immorality than homosexaulity or same sex marriage. im sorry i really dont mean to cause controvesry, but it just doesnt make any sense whatsoever. i have read everything you wrote, but sometimes i cant reply to every single comment directed toward me, otherwise id be hogging the thread lol.
let me try a little thought expirement, and please answer honestly and give reasons for your answer. pretend God gave you an option, you could choose to either 1)make all drugs dissapear from the face of the earth forever, or 2) make the phenomena of homosexuality dissapear forever. now honestly, which would you choose? and why?

You feel anger when you hear other Catholics affirm Church teaching??? So since the Church does not forbid the use of alcohol I should not believe anything she teaches?

 

[surritter]

or perhaps its the moral theologians who seriously need to re-examine their world views.

At least they have a grasp of basic theological principles. I get can’t any farther here until we understand the idea of “intrinsic.”

obut seriously, regardless of what the moral theologians say, how can smoking during pregnancy be a-ok, but homosexuality be “gravely evil”? thats what i dont get, and thats why i feel anger when i start to hear other catholics go on about the “evils” of homosexuality, while staying silent on more serious issues. if you study reality, you will find that smoking and drinking cause far more immorality than homosexaulity or same sex marriage. im sorry i really dont mean to cause controvesry, but it just doesnt make any sense whatsoever. i have read everything you wrote, but sometimes i cant reply to every single comment directed toward me, otherwise id be hogging the thread lol.

Understood. But you’ve admitted that it doesn’t make sense to you why some things are intrinsically evil, even though other things seem to cause more trouble. It comes down to this: we can never directly do something that is intrinsically, objectively evil, even if it’s meant to bring about a good result. Homosexual acts are objectively wrong; they can never be justified. War, on the other hand, can sometimes be justified. War may cause more deaths, but Christians can’t condemn every instance of war as an intrinsic evil. Homosexual acts, however, are always and everywhere immoral.
Moral theologians sometimes use a hypothetical example called the “trolley problem,” where a decision has to be made about sacrificing a person by throwing him onto the tracks, but the intent is to stop a runaway trolley, which if unchecked will careen to the certain destruction of a dozen people. Answer: you can’t push the innocent person onto the tracks, even though 12 others may die.

let me try a little thought expirement, and please answer honestly and give reasons for your answer. pretend God gave you an option, you could choose to either 1)make all drugs dissapear from the face of the earth forever, or 2) make the phenomena of homosexuality dissapear forever. now honestly, which would you choose? and why?

Catholics would choose #2, because God created a human being to copulate with the opposite sex. To engage in same-sex acts is to defy God’s direct design; it’s intrinsically evil.
Drugs, however, were given to us in the form of natural ingredients which are morally neutral. To abuse a drug is dangerous, and it’s sinful in that one is damaging the body, but the taking of a drug is not smacking God’s design directly in the face.

I think you’re getting hung up on the “economy” of how much good you can extract from something. That’s often important, but it’s not the driving factor: we first need to observe the intrinsic nature of things. Once that’s in order, we can then sort out the more subjective things like how to combat drugs, provide housing and health care, etc.

 

[vera_dicere]

My opposition to “gay marriage” is rooted in the foundation of the Truth given by God to Catholicism.

My public opposition to it, however, is based on the simple fact it is destructive to the family unit, and the family unit is the foundation of society. It corrupts gender roles, distressing children, gay relationships are more prone to domestic violence, alcohol and substence abuse, their rates of cheating and promosicuity is increased. A homosexual union can NEVER produce children, and as a tax payer I feel agrieved paying funds to support Larry and Chuck’s gay union. Under NZL law they get the same tax breaks as a heterosexual married couple with children. I want my tax dollars supporting the future generation, not paying to put a new leather sofa in their sitting room. - Okay, that’s gross generalisation, but my point stands.

If “gay marriage” got on the same level as real marriage, then they will be allowed to adopt, and a child has a right to a mum and a dad. Sure, kids get abused in mum/dad families, but the risks are much lower if mum and dad are stable married, as opposed to Steve and Jeff.

Some studies may point to children doing better in Lesbian homes, but that study was defunked as rubbish, and generally they have more disposible income - but it takes more than money to raise a healthy child. Just look at Paris Hilton.

If we want to kick gay marriage out of society, we need to be attacking contraception. Rid ourselves and our church of it. Stand as an exmaple.

The first people into Hell are the cowards. People who are luke warm and fuss about over not wanting to hurt people’s feelings. Generally I don’t care what peopel do or not do in regards to their faith or values, but the momen their actions, or lack thereof affect children thats when we all have to get mouthy.

 

[WeightedHeart]

Except of course we are talking about gay ‘marriage,’ not just two men supposedly in love with each other holding hands at the movies …

All right - I’ll bite. Explain the subtext here: how is it two men are incapable of loving one another?

I will not quibble with you that the gay ‘marriage’ movement is more a symptom than a cause of social decay. The devaluation of marriage and family ties, especially through divorce, contraception and abortion, created the environment for the demand for gay 'marriage.’ It became easy to enter into and get out of marriages and to maintain intentionally childless unions. And there is fornication, adultery, the porn epidemic, voluntary single-parenthood, voluntary sterilization, etc. If we know what’s good for us, we should all hold all these threats to marriage in contempt. They are all corrosive acids eating away at the foundations of civilization.

HOWEVER,

Gay ‘marriage’ needs to be opposed because it is not an insignificant addition to the self-centered conception of sexual gratification, as with heterosexual fornication and the social ills brought about by pornography. Homosexual acts normalized by ‘marriage’ would threaten the future of human civilization, something that should concern secularists as much as people of faith.

In case you are not paying attention, there is a demographic crisis playing out in Western Europe with the collapsed birth rates in countries there. The U.S. is not far behind with its replacement rate. Read Warning Bell for Developed Countries: Declining Birth Rates

Further, there are explanations better expressed in this article by Bonchamps, What Radical Gays Really Want - And Will Never Ever Have

Portion of it below, bolding mine.

Forgive me. I’ve clearly missed a point along the way here.

Your argument started off with the decay of society. It is a serious matter. It needs to be addressed. But … you went on to attack sexual gratification?

Allow me to demonstrate the error in this line of thought.

QUESTION OPEN TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ANSWER
Who among you incites the act of marital relations with thoughts of how to feed an extra mouth, where to put the next car seat, and with the certain guilt it will be impossible to provide a college fund for any child that might result of said relations?

Sexual gratification isn’t a doorway to hell. It’s a biological necessity. Without it, fear and uncertainty alone would have ended the human race a long, long time ago. We, after all, cannot predict the future. We can’t know we’ll be there for our children when they need us, or what troubles their lives may bring them. Sexual gratification is also something else: when the act is committed by two people who care about each other, enough not to leave one another in a bind without taking responsibility for the consequences of said relations, it is a sign of faith that we can handle what life throws at us.

Does that make the LGBT lifestyle indecent? No. But by design, they can never hold a child that is one half them and one half that of the person they love - knowing full well that never to be child is proof they believe in something larger. I believe it weighs heavily on the hearts of many.

You seem to believe they don’t care about morality, that they are interested in sexual gratification for the sake of gratification, that this is an equality agenda for the sake of equality.

What is the purpose in that? Adopting children they don’t want? To rub a same-sex marriage in the face of whomever they please? To sleep with as many human beings as possible - regardless of gender? To what end?

There is a simpler answer here - if you’re willing to hear it: you, my friend, lack faith in your fellow man.

 

[someperson555]

At least they have a grasp of basic theological principles. I get can’t any farther here until we understand the idea of “intrinsic.”
Understood. But you’ve admitted that it doesn’t make sense to you why some things are intrinsically evil, even though other things seem to cause more trouble. It comes down to this: we can never directly do something that is intrinsically, objectively evil, even if it’s meant to bring about a good result. Homosexual acts are objectively wrong; they can never be justified. War, on the other hand, can sometimes be justified. War may cause more deaths, but Christians can’t condemn every instance of war as an intrinsic evil. Homosexual acts, however, are always and everywhere immoral.

okay, i understand it more clearly now. but even if something is not intrinsically evil, it can still be more sinful than something that is intrinsically evil. im going to use the example of war as well. when the war meets the requirments for a “just war”, then yes, it is not sinful. but when the war is an imperialistic war of aggression, then it is worse than homosexuality. its the same with drugs, snorting cocaine just once may not even be a mortal sin, but when someone habitually uses the drugs without regard to his family or health, and by doing so puts others at risk, then thats worse than a homosexual act. would you not say?

Moral theologians sometimes use a hypothetical example called the “trolley problem,” where a decision has to be made about sacrificing a person by throwing him onto the tracks, but the intent is to stop a runaway trolley, which if unchecked will careen to the certain destruction of a dozen people. Answer: you can’t push the innocent person onto the tracks, even though 12 others may die.

that is a question of wether the ends justify the means. honestly that is a very tough question which deserves a thread of it’s own. i will say that machiavellian methods do appear logical, but i guess it depends a lot on the ends to determine if the means are worth it. we could apply this to the question of same sex marriage. if we legalize same sex marriage and finally put the issue to rest and have relative peace and tranquillity, all the while the catholic church’s customs will remain untouched, it seems worth it to me.

Catholics would choose #2, because God created a human being to copulate with the opposite sex. To engage in same-sex acts is to defy God’s direct design; it’s intrinsically evil.
Drugs, however, were given to us in the form of natural ingredients which are morally neutral. To abuse a drug is dangerous, and it’s sinful in that one is damaging the body, but the taking of a drug is not smacking God’s design directly in the face.

I think you’re getting hung up on the “economy” of how much good you can extract from something. That’s often important, but it’s not the driving factor: we first need to observe the intrinsic nature of things. Once that’s in order, we can then sort out the more subjective things like how to combat drugs, provide housing and health care, etc.

perhaps i am too utillitarian in my reasoning. but i see more of a cause and effect patttern. drugs cause fornication, gang wars, theft, robbery, murder, corruption in politics, health problems, debt, child abuse, and so much more evils.
but what about homosexuality? what does that cause? even if its an evil in itself it doesnt really lead to other evils therefore it is more benign. thats why i cant agree with your decision.
another hypothetical, would you rather your son be a homosexual or a meth addict?

 

[Stephen168]

another hypothetical, would you rather your son be a homosexual or a meth addict?

Would you rather hit your son in the head with a 3 pound hammer or a 5 pound hammer?

 

[fix]

QUESTION OPEN TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ANSWER
Who among you incites the act of marital relations with thoughts of how to feed an extra mouth, where to put the next car seat, and with the certain guilt it will be impossible to provide a college fund for any child that might result of said relations?

Here is the simple answer:

In point of fact pleasure itself is neither right nor wrong. It
all depends on whether the antecedent action is right or wrong.
That an action is pleasurable is, if anything, an indication that
the action is sound and in accordance with human nature. Pleasure
is congenial to good action. It is true that our nature is ill
and our desires disorganized by original sin, and that
consequently we can enjoy things out of place. Yet pleasure is
not a luxury, but a necessity; the sign and stimulus of healthy
activity.

The complete pleasure of human sex intercourse is not morally
shady; the action in itself is natural and rational when it fits
in with the divine plan of the world. Taking into account the
great power of the impulse and its profound effects on the
individual and on society and the dangers of its excess and
abuse, it is not surprising that the right exercise of sex is
limited to certain situations. As a matter of fact restricting
conditions surround every desire, for ruin would result if
immediate satisfaction were open and granted to every one of
them.