Gay "marriage" question for CATHOLICS - Page 15

Befink · #**211** Sep 16, '12, 8:48 am

OP question has been answered many times over. Can't do much now if you're still not understanding where we're coming from. Just re-read our posts and you'll find them. No reason to continue here.

Peace be with you

Faithdancer · #**212** Sep 16, '12, 8:52 am

Yes, our Forum Master summed it up very nicely on the previous page.

markeverett49 · #**213** Sep 16, '12, 9:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwest2

Most of your statements are 100% against Church teaching. Your continuing to promote something that isn't right or true will not change anything. Catholics who know and understand Church teaching will ignore this entirely since it is not based on Church teaching. And Catholics will oppose this whenever they can and should.

Well said.

Listener · #**214** Sep 16, '12, 4:08 pm

The meaning of marriage is being completely eroded. I am old enough to remember when almost nobody was divorced. If a Catholic couple got a divorce, it was the talk of the town for months. Divorced people were considered rather "tainted," as in someone you wouldn't want to hang around with. Annulments were few and far between. Divorce wasn't something you could just get. You had to have "grounds" for a divorce. I think you had to sue in court. Of course, it wasn't very nice to treat divorced people that way, but I am just pointing out that the meaning of marriage has already changed a lot over the last 50 years.

Now, I can understand if a same-sex couple wants some kind of "domestic partnership," with marriage-like benefits. After all, you can have a business partnership with almost anyone, so why not a domestic partnership? However, that is not a marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now, I'm wondering where this will all end. Someone will probably ask, why is marriage between TWO people. They will insist that there are good reasons for a marriage to include three or more people. Mormon men will ask why they can't have more than one wife. You know something? If marriage is not a union between a man and a woman, then I can't imagine why the Mormons couldn't have more than one wife.

So if I was having trouble in my marriage, maybe my husband could just go get himself an additional wife if he wasn't happy with me. It seems like this whole thing opens a huge Pandora's box.

People need to use their heads instead of just their emotions when they vote on whether or not to legalize gay marriage.

**edwest2** · #**215** Sep 16, '12, 4:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Listener

The meaning of marriage is being completely eroded. I am old enough to remember when almost nobody was divorced. If a Catholic couple got a divorce, it was the talk of the town for months. Divorced people were considered rather "tainted," as in someone you wouldn't want to hang around with. Annulments were few and far between. Divorce wasn't something you could just get. You had to have "grounds" for a divorce. I think you had to sue in court. Of course, it wasn't very nice to treat divorced people that way, but I am just pointing out that the meaning of marriage has already changed a lot over the last 50 years.

Now, I can understand if a same-sex couple wants some kind of "domestic partnership," with marriage-like benefits. After all, you can have a business partnership with almost anyone, so why not a domestic partnership? However, that is not a marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now, I'm wondering where this will all end. Someone will probably ask, why is marriage between TWO people. They will insist that there are good reasons for a marriage to include three or more people. Mormon men will ask why they can't have more than one wife. You know something? If marriage is not a union between a man and a woman, then I can't imagine why the Mormons couldn't have more than one wife.

So if I was having trouble in my marriage, maybe my husband could just go get himself an additional wife if he wasn't happy with me. It seems like this whole thing opens a huge Pandora's box.

People need to use their heads instead of just their emotions when they vote on whether or not to legalize gay marriage.

The meaning of marriage has never changed for Catholics, even over the last 50 years. We are not Mormons. "Domestic partnership" is marriage for gay people. It's just like two roommates except for the sex. Can I get Domestic Partnership benefits because I live with my sister? And who's going to pay for the benefits? Let's be honest, this is about legalizing gay sex by law and calling it a "Civil Union" or a "Domestic Partnership" or even "Marriage."

Business partnerships (I've been in one) involve money, not sex. This is about everybody accepting how gay people already live right now, except they want the government, and the rest of us, to approve it. Husband and husband? Wife and wife? It's against Biology, Natural Law and Church Teaching.

No one is standing at the Church door as you walk in to check on your sexual orientation. No one. It's one thing to leave people alone to do what they want, it's another thing when they want to force what is bad for a stable society on the rest of us and to tell us that what they call "gay marriage" actually exists. It doesn't. Sure, they can love their partner, but keep it out of the voting booth. Nobody needs anybody's permission to live how they want right now.

And God will continue to love us regardless of what sexual sins we commit, but there will be a problem if we don't repent of our sins and go to Confession.

Peace,
Ed

Iron Donkey · #**216** Sep 16, '12, 5:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Befink

OP question has been answered many times over. Can't do much now if you're still not understanding where we're coming from. Just re-read our posts and you'll find them. No reason to continue here.

Peace be with you

I think we understand what you've said, the problem is that a fair amount of it is direct contradiction with Catholic teaching. The rest was trying to point this out to you in hopes that you either meant something else and could explain, or would realize this.

Faithdancer · #**217** Sep 16, '12, 7:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron Donkey

I think we understand what you've said, the problem is that a fair amount of it is direct contradiction with Catholic teaching. The rest was trying to point this out to you in hopes that you either meant something else and could explain, or would realize this.

This is true, and the thread was started in the first place to attempt to have a discussion about the issue which devolves around moral theology. But some keep trying to drag it back into the "social justice" arena. I believe this is because there is no defense for a Roman Catholic to say that homosexual activity, or any relationship that involves it, is not inherently sinful. It is also not possible for a Roman Catholic to say that marriage is not a holy Sacrament between a man and a woman, without denying established Catholic doctrine and thereby committing heresy.

By sanctioning gay "marriage," or even civil unions, outside the Church, we are not helping practicing homosexuals toward salvation- we are giving them up as lost and turning a blind eye to their damnation. Where is the charity in that?

I don't know where all of these CAF Catholics are who supposedly support gay "marriage" are. I've seen two. I guess that was just another unsupported fantasy statement.