Wrong to Support LGBT?

[Thorolfr]

The Wikipedia article says, “As of 2 April 2019, same-sex marriage is legally performed and recognized (nationwide or in some jurisdictions) in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada…”

You’re not going to deny that same-sex civil marriage exists in all those places are you? Same-sex marriage, at least in the civil institution of marriage, is not just part of our “cultural lexicon,” it’s part of the law in all those places listed in the Wikipedia article.

 

[Thorolfr]

Right. I’m not saying that that doesn’t exist, just that the terminology is erroneous.
[/quote]

For quite a lot of people who get married, and that includes many straight people, they’re not interested in it because of what it’s called. They’re interested in it because of the legal and financial benefits and protections that come with it. That’s probably why most same-sex couples get married and those benefits and protections are very real and do exist.

 

[JimG]

What is surprising is that “same sex marriage” is not recognized as the contradiction that it is. Marriage is a union of a sexually complementary couple—a man and a woman. Each human being possesses half of a reproductive system. A man and a woman together have a complete reproductive system. That is what makes their union marital. There is nothing marital about a same sex union. Such a union can never be marital. It can never be marriage.

Same-sex "marriage"

Tim Staples discusses what the Catholic Church teaches about same-sex “marriage” and why it is a non-negotiable moral issue.

www.catholic.com

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

You might not want to reply to him.

 

[AlNg]

I find a lot of useful information on wikipedia. It may not be NPOV in all of its articles, but I am not sure if there are all that many sources today which are NPOV.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

So many people here are so preoccupied with the intimate private details of the lives of others

How many exactly?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Do you actually mean all Catholics? Because that’s the first I heard of that type of usage of the word.

 

[JMMJ]

How many exactly?

“So many” doesn’t require an exact count.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Well it’s good to keep track in order to avoid exaggerations.

 

[thistle]

The Wikipedia article says, “As of 2 April 2019, same-sex marriage is legally performed and recognized (nationwide or in some jurisdictions) in Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada…”

You’re not going to deny that same-sex civil marriage exists in all those places are you? Same-sex marriage, at least in the civil institution of marriage, is not just part of our “cultural lexicon,” it’s part of the law in all those places listed in the Wikipedia article.

Do not get hung up on whether something is legal or not. It is irrelevant if civil authorities in some countries make same sex “marriage” legal. Just because something is legal in a country does not make it moral and not a sin. Take abortion as an example. It’s legal in many places but it remains immoral and a sin of grave matter.

 

[rightness]

For quite a lot of people who get married, and that includes many straight people, they’re not interested in it because of what it’s called. They’re interested in it because of the legal and financial benefits and protections that come with it. That’s probably why most same-sex couples get married and those benefits and protections are very real and do exist.

Then you’re not arguing for marriage. You’re arguing for legal benefits of shared possession, living together, and such benefits. You can get the government to get you that legal contracting with another person without even touching the definition of marriage.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

For quite a lot of people who get married, and that includes many straight people, they’re not interested in it because of what it’s called. They’re interested in it because of the legal and financial benefits and protections that come with it. That’s probably why most same-sex couples get married and those benefits and protections are very real and do exist.

Then you’re not arguing for marriage. You’re arguing for legal benefits of shared possession, living together, and such benefits. You can get the government to get you that legal contracting with another person without even touching the definition of marriage.

What exactly is the definition of marriage? In some countries, the definition of marriage can include one husband and up to four wives. Or in some countries, you can have a marriage contract that lasts for only one hour.

 

[rightness]

What exactly is the definition of marriage? In some countries, the definition of marriage can include one husband and up to four wives. Or in some countries, you can have a marriage contract that lasts for only one hour.

Matthew 19:3-6

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”

When a Man and a Woman become one. It literally means when a man and woman have sex to produce children. That is the Sacrament of Marriage as defined by God in the beginning of Creation.

Did you know that before a certain time, up to medieval ages, a man and a woman didn’t even need a priest or a church to get married in this way? The man and the woman are ministers of the sacrament, but because of a lot of confusion in keeping track with marriages within the church, the church instituted the necessity of marriage ceremonies.

There’s a lot more depth to it, so I suggest reading the Catechism about marriage in the Catholic Church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

 

[Thorolfr]

There’s a lot more depth to it, so I suggest reading the Catechism about marriage in the Catholic Church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

Even granting that marriage historically has been between a man and woman, the Catholic definition of what that marriage should look like is not the only one that has existed. If a married man and woman become one, what happens if a man has more than one wife? Jacob for example was married to both Leah and Rachel. So, was he one with both of them at the same time?

 

[lilypadrees]

Why do Roman Catholic colleges publish magazines which congratulate their graduates who have gotten married and state things like Jane and Mary got married or that Bob and Bill got married?

I don’t know the answer to that question. But then, I’ve never read any articles in Catholic publications stating anything like that.

As for Wikipedia, anyone can add to or delete from its many articles. They aren’t the best source of information for anything. I would take anything they say with a grain of salt. I

 

[Thorolfr]

I don’t know if you’ve seen some of my earlier posts, but I have previously said that I didn’t really have a problem with the same-sex civil unions, and I specifically suggested over and over again when the whole debate reached a fever pitch (before “same-sex marriage” was legalised) that the legal luxuries that are associated with marriage be extended to same-sex civil unions as well.

[/quote]

But the Catholic Church has even been opposed to any of these “legal luxuries” being extended to gay couples, even to so called “Domestic partnerships”. As one Catholic bishop, Paul S. Loverde, wrote:

The covenant of marriage is the very foundation of the continuation and the well-being of society itself, as the Second Vatican Council affirmed. Therefore, civil officials have an important interest in protecting, promoting and enhancing the institution of marriage and of family life. The situation of non-married couples cannot, and should not, be placed on a par with the conjugal union of husband and wife. Other forms of “domestic partnerships” may attempt to mirror the marital relationship, but they lack the essential goods of marriage…

The same mindset would, I believe, inevitably follow upon the enactment of “domestic partnership” legislation. The status of cohabiting couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual, would be considered by many in our society, on the moral and social levels, to have been elevated by such legislation to the equivalent of marriage. Would our young people not be affected by this? Would such legislation not contribute further to the already serious loss of respect for and commitment to marriage and family life? Would the view that human sexuality can be given any meaning the individual chooses to give it not be further reinforced?

Some have argued that granting health insurance benefits to domestic partners is a pro-life issue. This is a false argument. True, the Catholic Church has always seen health care as a fundamental act of charity, intrinsically bound up with the Gospel itself. True, the Church has consistently made known its support for adequate health care coverage for everyone. In 1993, in fact, the bishops of the United States stated clearly and directly, “Every person has a right to adequate health care.”

If everyone has a right to adequate and affordable health care and coverage, however, it does not follow that society should extend its preferential attitude toward marriage to non-married sexual unions. Society has basic and persuasive reasons to favor marriage. These reasons do not apply, nor do they exist, in the case of “domestic partnership” arrangements. It would be a fundamental violation of justice to compel, even indirectly, taxpayers who are opposed to “domestic partnerships” on moral or religious grounds to support such relationships.

 

[rightness]

Even granting that marriage historically has been between a man and woman, the Catholic definition of what that marriage should look like is not the only one that has existed. If a married man and woman become one, what happens if a man has more than one wife? Jacob for example was married to both Leah and Rachel. So, was he one with both of them at the same time?

You’re getting into more details of the Bible, and I hope you keep looking because we’re happy to provide answers.

The key information that you need to understand why polygamy was allowed in the Old Testament is simply because the promised people, through the time Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David, were unable to perfectly hold true to their marital vows of being exclusive to one spouse as it was in the beginning. In Genesis 2, before the fall of Adam, that is the perfect relationship that God had wanted for Adam and Eve, so when Adam ate the apple and obtained knowledge of evil, he began to distrust his wife and God.

That’s why polygamy was allowed as a concession in the Old Testament because they did not have the ability to trust God, and the Old Testament is a perfect example of why polygamy fails. For example, because of Solomon’s 1000+ wives and concubines, the Davidic Kingdom was destroyed and the Israelites scattered and enslaved.

The quote that I wrote about is about divorce, another concession of the Old Testament when Moses instituted the Mosaic Laws, so you can apply the same principle to polygamy. Jesus has arrived, and with Him, we have the power to live our marital vows exclusively to one person. He has come to undo all the concessions of the Old Testament: polygamy, divorce, punishment through stoning, circumcision. Therefore, you have to look how marriage is defined when Jesus speaks about it because Jesus, as a part of the Trinity, made marriage what it is now when He made it in the beginning. The people of the Old Testament were too weak to hold their marital vows, but now we have God in our lives to help us live out our vows of marriage.

 

[rightness]

But the Catholic Church has even been opposed to any of these “legal luxuries” being extended to gay couples, even to so called “Domestic partnerships”. As one Catholic bishop, Paul S. Loverde, wrote:

You have to discern the difference of the Catholic Church’s teachings and one bishop. We even have a priest now who fully endorses same-sex marriage in the Catholic Church (though I don’t know how long he will be in the church). The magesterium is the one who determines Catholic doctrine.

As for Bishop Loverde’s writing, he’s really against any kind cohabiting benefit as he points out, not just homosexual. From what I read, I think he’s really arguing for benefits only for families. As a married heterosexual couple, they are preparing for children, and it’s the children that are the true recipients of any legal benefits that the couple might obtain. I know there’s a reason to be had for adoption being in the same realm, so, I think, that should be opened to discussion, however, for couples that aren’t seeking children in their lives, the Bishop doesn’t think they should receive any benefits.

Did you know that where I live, if you live a year with a person at an address, you are declared a common-law with that person, which literally means you’re married to them in accordance to the government? You get all the benefits, and if you leave, you are entitled to half of their stuff or they to yours whoever has more stuff in the home. You don’t even need to get married to be married to a person legally.

 

[prayerrider]

Indeed. And laws permitting such imitation “marriages” are promoted and passed by those under diabolical influence.

 

[prayerrider]

Sadly, yes. I don’t care how much statuary a college has, or how ornate their chapel is. That’s just window dressing. They either teach Ex Corde Ecclesia, or they don’t.