I am a very religious catholic and I do believe in everything the bible says. In today world gay marriage is probably the biggest topic. This is where I am stuck. I do not support gay marriage like many Catholics don’t. But I also believe in the equality on how people are being treated. I don’t support the do-ing of gay marriage, as in the sexual act is made for the reproduction of gods children and not pleasure but I also don’t believe in the discrimination of their marriage. I’ve been called double standard for this but it is the way I think… Am I the only one? Am I going to go to Hell for thinking like this?
On one level, your thinking is something like the vertebrae of the spine being pushed out of joint. That you ask a question like this indicates you know something is out of whack, and it is screaming at you.
What do you think a marriage is?
Matthew 19:4-5 He answered, 'Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female and that he said: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh?
No other options available.
There is no marriage for gay people.
It sounds like you are constructing a religious definition of marriage based on a fundamentalist/legalist reading of our scriptures and applying it to non-traditional couples who want a secular government to recognize their unions as affording them the same legal protections and privileges that traditional religionists also enjoy in the secular sphere.
Is that about right?
Your quote does not say, no other options available. And Marriage is an option for Gay people in many countries. Your perspective is a religious one and not a legal or moral one.
It seems to me that you are expanding the definition of fundamentalism/legalism to include the constant Catholic understanding and teaching about this passage. Is that about right?
And, no, I don’t think you have characterized Nelka’s position accurately.
Firstly, Nelka is talking about the definition of marriage that is true whether you are religious or not. One common term for it is natural marriage. I don’t think there is any evidence that there is such a thing as “a religious definition of marriage” and “a secular definition of marriage.” There is natural marriage and sacramental marriage. Both are for people capable of completing the sexual act with one another.
Second, Nelka is not applying the definition of natural marriage to homosexual couples. He is saying that the government should not apply that definition to homosexual couples.
Third, I think the definition of non-traditional couples is shaky and can include interracial couples. The Church has no problem with interracial couples, and many other couples that could fall under the definition of “non-traditional” in some cultures, so we should use a more specific term.
Fourth, not everyone who has same-sex attraction wants the government to redefine marriage.
Fifth, redefining marriage does not protect anybody. It harms people and it lies to people.
All right. Let’s try something different for you, then.
PRE-CHRISTIAN GREECE, an incredibly homoerotic part of the world at the time, did not have a concept of marriage as anything but between a man and a woman. Same with pagan Rome, before and after Christianity. The Arabs never had a concept that a marriage could take place only between women or only between men - at least one of each was required.
Historically, absent of the religious arguments of the Catholic Church, there has been no recourse to so-called “gay marriage”. It never existed. This is because heredity - which determines the family, which determines, at the like - depends on a man and a woman having children. It is not possible to have a human child without one man and one woman. That’s biology. Ancient pre-Christian cultures got that, and didn’t need religion to understand that.
It’s only now when we’ve got distancing technologies - surrogates, IVF, artificial insemination - that we seem to have forgotten that the sperm still has to come from a man, and the egg from a woman. And so we think nothing of even a single woman having a child. And who is its father? God knows, but no one else will - not unless the child goes looking. And some do. And some are greatly disappointed. But even they know something is amiss if they have no father or mother. It’s not normal for a child not to have a father or mother. It is not right. Now, sometimes it’s out of the power of a single parent. But that doesn’t mean it makes their parenting OK. It just means they’re doing the best they can without a vital component of family life - the father, or more rarely the mother.
You do realize that about 60% of American Catholics believe that same-sex marriage should be legal, right?. Whether such unions are moral or even qualify as a true marriage is another question altogether, but certainly many Catholics seem to believe that equality under the law should be afforded to those who do no share their beliefs… much like how Catholics believe in freedom of religion even if that means being allowed to practice non-Catholic religions, or how many Catholics believe in freedom of speech even if such speech entails vulgarity, insults, or blasphemy. Many Catholics seem to believe that just because you have the right to do something, doesn’t mean you should, which is partly why they are so comfortable with giving rights and legal recognition to same-sex couples.
I’m not necessarily saying that I agree with these Catholics, but it is was it is. The attitude among American Catholics has shifted dramatically in recent years, and we must acknowledge this reality so that we can deal with it appropriately.
Same-sex marriage is becoming increasingly popular among Catholics, so one must wonder what future polling will look like if this trend is not addressed.
My opinion: your thinking is a bit confused.
Catholics certainly believe in equality, everyone should be treated with justice. Orthodox Catholics do not discriminate against gay marriage, they just don’t believe in it. It can’t exist.
Any more than you could marry your cat, If I tell you that your marriage to your cat is not a marriage, am I discriminating against you? No, I’m gently telling you that you’re not dealing with reality. I can still respect you and hope you go to heaven, but I refuse to admit that your marriage to your cat is valid.
I doubt that you would go to hell for having such a belief, but if you want to be logical, you might want to examine your beliefs more closely.
My opinion is that the majority of this comes from having a separate secular institution of marriage. I don’t think that we should have both a state and a religious institution of marriage. As far as the state is concerned (IMHO) you should be able to state who you want to be treated as having authority over your affairs, and who depends on you financially (within reason). This would not only fix that particular mess, but it would allow for people to do things like take care of friends who can’t make ends meet, while having the state recognize that particular situation.
How do you feel about divorce? Divorce is against Catholic doctrine on marriage, yet civil law allows divorce for civil marriages.
Civil law allows same sex marriages in the same way as it allows divorce. Both are against Catholic doctrine, but civil law is not bound by Catholic doctrine.
Treat civil same sex marriage in the same way as you treat civil divorce.
Don’t you think that’s what we’re already doing? In my experience, the Church treats both same-sex “marriage” and civil divorce as (1) sins and (2) invalid. It is also my experience that the Church objects to the State both when it recognizes same-sex “marriages” and when it permits divorce. Do you see any other way to treat them the same than this?
I see a lot more commentary from the Catholic side about SSM than I do about divorce. Currently there tends to be a long piece about the dangers of SSM, with possibly a short appendix, “By the way, we’re against divorce as well.”
In time I suspect that both will be relegated to the status of appendices. SSM is a live issue at the moment, but it will likely become less so once the (civil) law is settled.
That seems to be reasonable enough, though there are other significant possibilities. Abortion has not become an appendix issue, for example. Despite being “legal” for 40 years, there is more opposition to it now than there has ever been. Opposition to same-sex “marriage” may have more in common with opposition to abortion than with opposition to divorce, such as being shared by both evangelicals and Catholics, but we’ll see.
I think both divorce and same-sex “marriage” will both be reversed eventually. I think (and hope) that more and more people will enter the Catholic Church in the coming decades, and the culture will gradually become more Catholic as that happens. At that point, I think these issues will pop back up again, and some of these decisions will be reversed. We’ll see. Hope and pray.
Oh my, I don’t think we are living on the same planet if you really and truly think that that civil divorce and civil marriage for both straight and gay people is going to be reversed. Whenever the government tries to mandate morality such as during the Roaring Twenties, the results are not pretty and eventually had to be reversed. :eek:
There is a very obvious victim of an abortion. There is no obvious victim with SSM, even less than there is for divorce, and divorce has become an ‘appendix’ issue.
I think it can be reversed if a sufficient cultural shift takes place toward Catholic teaching, and I do think that will happen. I think of the Roman empire as an example. When Catholics got into the positions of power, ancient laws changed to reflect Catholic doctrine. Eventually, I think that will happen in America.
Whenever the government tries to mandate morality such as during the Roaring Twenties, the results are not pretty and eventually had to be reversed.
I think you can reverse same-sex “marriage” and civil divorce without legislating morality. I think that legislating morality is telling people that they must or must not do a specific action, or they will be punished. If the government just doesn’t recognize divorce or same-sex relationships, it isn’t telling people what to do, it’s just not supporting people in their sins. Does that make sense?
BTW, isn’t all law legislated morality? Can you give an example of any law, even a little one, that isn’t an expression of a moral principle such as “thou shalt not kill” or “honor thy father and thy mother”?
Here’s a catholic video on the topic that is helpful. It’s titled The Third Way: Homosexuality and the Catholic Church. In short there is, in the Churches view, no such thing as “gay marriage” so there is nothing to agree or disagree with. Simply love people as they are and stand firm on the truth of all Church teachings. You cannot cherry pick the truth.
We’ll have to wait and see whether opposition to unjust laws is a function of how obvious the victims are or a combination of that plus other factors. Personally, I think opposition to both civil divorce and civil same-sex “marriage” will grow among Catholic circles as adult formation programs grow in popularity, and will eventually become dominant again. We’ll have to wait and see.
Imagine 40% of the population wanting public law to be a mirror image of the social doctrine of the Catholic Church. I think that’s what we’re headed for in the coming decades, if catachetical formation programs continue to grow in popularity. And when it hits 40%, I think that’s when the laws will change, because that’s a plurality.
Noone here can tell you if you are going to hell, or whether you are culpable for your acts.
I have no idea what the red bolded text means. You take it as a given that same sex “marriage” exists? You did not read this in the Bible I’m sure. In fact, you would have read that God ordained man + woman to form one flesh.
So - please explain what the bold red text means to you.