"What Is Wrong With Homosexual Marriage?" A Catholic article


You define what is good by what you think would meet the approval of God. One can search the bible and the catechism and ask priests galore about any number of moral problems and you will not get everyone to agree. So to whom should we listen?

There are too many problems with no solution and I’m sure you would gladly admit to not having all the answers. So where do we get them?


Let’s say that there was a list of all the people that were going to be born in the next calender year assuming the parents were heterosexual and married within the Catholic church. But then one guy said: ‘actually I’m gay so I won’t be producing baby number 235, 678, 001’, then you might, drawing a very long bow indeed, argue that baby number 235, 678, 001 had his or her chance for life terminated.

But that’s not the case, is it…


We do what we think is right or decline to do what we think is wrong and then describe those actions as being good or bad.

I thought that was obvious.

This is patently nonsense.

If you have ever had a dog (for example) and it develops a disease that will eventually kill it, then at what point do you euthanise it?

If we have a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is ‘immediately’ and 10 is ‘when the pain is unbearable’ which is the morally correct point at which you take ‘ol Yella’ behind the barn and shoot him?


Indeed that is true. My question is more oriented towards the understanding of what determines what is moral.

I thought that was obvious. Guess not. Apologies though I would like to hear Thorolfr’s answer


We make a personal determination. Unless some Catholics do things that God (via the church) requires that they think are unreasonable.

Failing that, we are left with a barely credible situtaion that states that all Catholics happen to agree with all Catholic techings at all time. Which we know is not the case.

I’m expecting a ‘no true Scotsman’ reply here.


Yes they do.
And your point is? What?
They should never be born?

Do you hear what you are saying?


I have no idea what you are trying to say.


Because after all, Jews are not really human beings, that’s just my subjective personal prerogative to believe that.

Now, you will claim that people can arrive at justice by some sort of magic consensus, without objective moral norms, but real historical evidence is slapping you in the face.
Can you feel that?


Your argument is akin to suggesting that since I only had two children I have somehow deprived prospective child 3, child 4 etc of existence. Which is risible. I simply used a gay person having no children as opposed to me not having any more than two.


Unless you are some type of neo-Nazi then there won’t be many who would agree to killing anyone based on their race and/or religion.

And we can reach a decision on whether it is morally good or not without any reference to religion whatsoever. At least I hope you can.

Here’s a test: Someone is holding an Arab at gunpoint saying that all Arabs should die. And he is sick of hearing wishy washy religious arguments (his words, not mine). You have to persuade him that it is ‘a bad thing’ to kill him but any mention of God or religion or scripture and the Arab gets a head shot.

Please tell you you can do it…


What I said is nothing like what you heard.

Please point out how you connected those dots using what I actually said.


Brad: what you said specifically is: personal determination specifies morality.

I responded with a real illustration of the ignorance of that position.

Jews are not really human beings, that’s just my subjective personal prerogative to believe that.

Now, you will claim that people can arrive at justice by some sort of magic consensus, without objective moral norms, but real historical evidence is slapping you in the face.

What part of this real history are you in denial of?
Do you deny that Jews were killed because “personal determination” determined they are less than human.


Perhaps we can get them from Bradskii, who we know is all wise :slight_smile:



Your argument was that ssm is not beneficial because ‘it is good to be alive’ and being in a gay relationship means that you are preventing some potential child from having a life.

Otherwise, why do you keep using the term?


‘ol Yella’ eh?


Mmm. Got a number for us?


Brad, you are building the mother of all straw men.
I didn’t say that. Straw men are convenient, but all they do is allow you to avoid difficult issues you don’t want to address. You’re not that kind of guy are you?

Can you respond to what I actually said?


I was told to never give out personal information on the internet.


For your convenience Brad, here is what I said in response to FiveLinden. No need to create a conversation:

Here’s what morality is:
The evaluation of human acts in relation to the good.
The Catholic Church observes that it is good to be alive . Do you agree with that?

What is the one unique way human life happens? What is the one unique way that life flourishes?

On that basis, the Church simply observes what is revealed and proclaims it. If human life is good, and sacred, then shouldn’t we order our actions toward that good end? Is a gay union ordered in the same way toward that end as marriage? No. Do you assert otherwise?

It’s a very simple thing really, and doesn’t require a bunch of fancy scripture passages,and not one negative thing has to be said about gay people.

At the end of the day, it’s not about sexual prohibition or running others down, it’s about “the good” of human existence.


As in whatever we think is moral, is in fact moral, but only for ourselves?

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