Is calling gay marriage unnatural a good argument?

This is false. Human law defines what is, and what is not “criminal”. In the USA and much of Europe, same sex marriage is not criminal, it is as legal as opposite sex marriage.

By all means make your case, but if you include obvious mistakes like this then you are only weakening your own case.


Do you understand what the word “primary” means. You seemed to have confused it with the word “only”.
You need to develop your comprehension more fully here.

Gay marriage is certainly unnatural to the extent that it involves parties who are not sexually complementary. Same sex couples can never have marital sex, because marital sex requires sexual complementarity. So they have a non-marital ‘marriage.’ But that won’t win any arguments from proponents, since they believe that every individual is free to define nature for himself. Unreality is the order of the day. So the argument won’t work. You’ll just have to wait for the unnatural institution to fall of its own weight, as it will.

You need to think about my point more fully here. When a husband has intercourse with his already pregnant wife, is that sexual act open to its “primary” purpose? No it is not, because the wife is already pregnant. Similarly for the other situations I mentioned, such as a post-menopausal wife. Hence we can see that a sexual act that is not open to its primary purpose is not necessarily sinful. The absence of primary purpose does not equate to sin.

Hence, if you wish to establish that a specific act is sinful, then absence of primary purpose is not in itself sufficient.

Similarly, the presence of the primary purpose does not negate the sinfulness of fornication or adultery.

The presence, or absence, of the primary purpose does not in and of itself allow us to decide if an act is sinful or not. It is the other circumstances that determine the sinfulness.

You would do better to concentrate your argument on those other circumstances than on primary purpose in this discussion.


T do you see these benefits as ordinary rights (and therefore some relationships are discriminated against) or as a privelege accorded to some relationships in order to favour them for a benefit they provide society?

The secular world would argue that the notion that cloitus is the only natural form of sex is an inaccurate understanding of human sexuality. Someone who is arguing that it’s okay because we use phones, lamps, etc, it just trying to point out that even IF they give you that it is unnatural, you personally don’t actually believe that things that are unnatural are immoral.

Truthfully, they just think that you’re belief that homosexual acts are immoral is based on an emotional aversion to it and not actually on logic. They call this emotional aversion homophobia and see it as something wrong with you and offensive. They’re basically saying that the argument you are making doesn’t accurately reflect your views.

As a lawyer I can tell that, unless you are a lawyer that does estate planning,( which I am sure you are not because any lawyer knows that marriage.does.not mean that your legal issues are fixed) you do not.know.more than me of the situations involved in the subject. So yes, you are repeating without knowing because as I said that belief that marriage is going to guarantee all these legal protections without having to go to a lawyer is erroneous.

So are you saying that marriage confers no protections or benefits?

Read again my post. I gave you the answer clearly there.

The whole idea is a huge disservice for people. If you are expecting that marriage will resolve your legal issues automatically, you will end up like many heterosexual couples end up, discovering at the end that you do need to go to a lawyer and that the lawyer is going twice more as expensive to hire the lawyer at the end to.fix all the problems that come up from not looking for a lawyer earlier to make.sure you are protected.

No I wouldn’t.

Male and female procreate. That is the natural order.

Male and male/female and female do not. That is not the natural order. It is a disorder.


What should be noted is that the multiple meanings or purposes of the sexual act are all bound together in its nature. The mutual enjoyment, closeness and emotion of the act contribute to binding the couple, but this is **integrated **with the procreative nature of the act. In no sense does this mean that the act is to be limited to intended (willed) procreation, but it makes evident the intended context for the act.

There are multiple purposes. The Church only says they should not be torn asunder by man. It is taking steps to “tear apart” the purposes (or meanings) that the Church finds sinful. That is why sex with one’s pregnant wife is not sinful (despite no chance of producing a(nother) pregnancy) but sexual activity between two men is sinful.

These “protections” might be entirely reasonable things. Granting them to a married couple makes sense. But making the sexual relationship of marriage the only threshold to access them may be questionable. And they are or course a deplorable reason to marry. This puts the cart before the horse. Thus, they are no basis for “SSM”.

“Straight marriage” is also unnatural. It makes no difference what our “sexual orientation” is when it comes to marriage. God’s definition of marriage is based on the biological and spiritual complimentarity of a male and a female… not our sexual appetites.

Being “gay” or being “straight” or being anything for that matter, doesn’t matter. Just get a random male and a random female together who are open to life and are knowing and willing to remain together until death, and you got a marriage. That’s all it takes.

Marriage on the basis of physical attraction is not marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise.

Not at all. If a same sex couple are going to be together for the rest of their lives and live as a couple and getting married has both financial and legal benefits, why would such a couple not want to get married? I know of situations where a gay man died or was incapacitated, and his estranged biological family barred his partner from visiting him in the hospital or attending the funeral. I’m not even sure that legal paperwork beforehand without marriage could easily have prevented this kind of thing from happening in the cases I know of.

All of these things are covered in Scripture and the teachings of the Church. It is not a new thing that the secular world is discovering, it is a practice that past generations of devout followers had sense enough to steer clear of. Even documented attempts of the past and the inevitable disasters that ensued are written to eternity(Sodom).

Of the new secular individualism, the sins adopted all have one common cause, the breaking of a base precept. All that follows as a consequence is the effect of compounding. This too is also warned will happen.

There’s a number of things that really need to be qualified…

When I think “gay Catholics” … what I think of is…

  1. Catholics who experience SSA and adhere to the teaching of the Church.
  2. Seek to cultivate chaste, lifelong, self-giving and deeply intimate (close) relationships with others.

I think sometimes gay Catholics get the message so often about what they aren’t permitted to do, it becomes easy to forget just what IS permitted, and not only permitted, but commanded by our Lord… and then, when someone who has endured a lifetime of feeling unworthy of genuine love, to actually desire to do so again… is hard. But nothing is impossible with God.

It’s nice to know there are some things in life that “…against such there is no law” (Galatians 5:22).

Gay people need to know that God still “permits” them to be human.

Anything that is contrary to the law is criminal. Homosexual acts are directly contrary to the natural law, which is indeed a true law. Hence those acts are criminal, even if not punished by human law.

Benedicat Deus,

As I said, the various rights you mention may well be deserved by persons other than those married. But it puts the horse before the cart to marry to secure rights. But your position is certainly a rational next step given the starting position you assume.

I disagree that 1. is something that is inevitable,unchanging and the person must resign himself to these forms of attractions. This is also part of the ruse.

*Gay people…to be human." is a resignation statement. *

It is wrong to segment them out of the main group. This is fine if we are discussing the phenomena as a study. It would be no more permissible to say “Robbers need to know …permits them to be human”. We don’t use the phraseology because we have confession for him in the back of our mind.

We are unwittingly implying to robbers that they have an excepted out for their behavior as they are among those who can work past their problem, whereas to the HS, we recognize a hopeless permanent condition which we relegate to the hands of God.

BTW: The label Gay reinforces the stereotype,(played to it’s maximum by the secular world) and helps send the message just stated.

They are people who through trickery have their natural attractions diverted by the devil.

Proof is through a cure, and we have proof of that. It calls for a devotion to the Blessed Mother and her Rosary. Many who have given her benefit of the doubt no longer have these attractions, and indeed have it replaced by revulsion of the thought, and have gone on to have loving spiritually healthy and normal families as God has designed it to be.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit