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


#310

I think that in the circumstances you desribe, a reasonable person would be one who would answer ‘no’ to the question ‘would you like being raped?’ So simply ask the soldier, do you think it would be entirely reasonable for someone to rape your mother, sister and daughter as a fringe benefit? Show me someone who says yes to that question and I will show you an unreasonable man.

The Golden Rule covers most such circumstances.


#311

That is why the two should really be separated. If a couple want to be legally bound and spiritually bound, then they should get married by the law, and then get married in whatever religious ceremony their religion affords them. I am all for gay marriage. It is a shame it is conflated with people of different religions weighing in on what is a marriage and what isnt. You should have your legal marriage and your spiritual/ marriage. If a particular church doesn’t want to marry gay people, or people with disabilities, or people of different races or socio-economic classes, or people who don’t want children, then I guess they get coverage under their religion to descriminate that way, and it is fine.

This isn’t that hard of a problem to figure out. Instead of the religious arguing that this group or that group can’t marry, why doesn’t the Church get out of the business of conducting legal marriages.


#312

Yes, the Church could simply get out of the business of certifying marriages as legal for the state. That still leaves the question of whether same sex marriages or other types of non traditional marriages are a benefit or a detriment to society.

I think that the state originally offered benefits to marriage because marriage was deemed a benefit to the nation. It provided stable families, raised and educated children, and was a source of social stability. No fault divorce weakened the value of marriage to the state. So have a number of other factors, including same sex marriage. If it’s just a matter of legal equality, why limit marriage at all? Let everyone decide for himself what marriage is, no matter the number or sex or age of the persons involved, and the state can bless it.


#313

The people decide that. It has already been decided. If you take the legal aspect out of religious marriage, then everyone is happy. Maybe not happy with the society they are living in. But they can complain about what an abomination it all is. Without religion in the conversation, they don’t really have a leg to stand on.


#314

And this is the problem that cannot be admitted. Why not call any two couples a marriage? The US Supreme Court cannot and should not redefine marriage. It is a common good to leave marriage as one unrelated man and one woman. Just because agitators for the destruction of this concept want something else does not benefit what has been established for the common good.


#315

Well with regards to age, one has to give full consent. So people below the age of consent are off the table. Other than that, I don’t really have a problem with someone legally marrying multiple spouses or their dog or whatever ridiculous scenario the religious people bring up as an argument against gay marriage. Legal marriage is in place to ensure rights. The definition of what those rights are, or why the are important can certainly evolve over time. This is to be expected as most laws change over time in any culture and society.


#316

Next up.

Transgender marriage.
Bisexual marriage.


#317

I don’t have a problem with either.


#318

This agitation for change in this case is just wrong.


#319

The destruction of the family is the ongoing problem.


#320

The destruction of what you think the family is supposed to be, maybe.


#321

Well, those who favor sexual relationships with adolescents might argue for a lowering of the age of consent, arguing that even eleven or twelve year olds can validly consent to marriage, so why should they be denied marriage equality? Parents who wish to marry their own children might also present a case.


#322

Well let them work to change the laws then, to adjust the age of consent to 12. Good luck with that. Not happening.

If a parent and child want to marry and they child is over the age of consent, I am fine with that.

Note: My idea of legal marriage doesn’t include sexual relations necessarily. I think, as a society, we need stop being so hung up on that. Marriage should be a legal, binding contract between people who wish to share their lives with eachother as family and enjoy legal protection in doing so. That is legal marriage. Religious marriage can address the sexual issues, if it so wishes.

I know I probably just made your head explode. I am a liberal, you have to remember. :grin:


#323

I believe transgender and bisexual marriage are already legal in most of the west. I’m not even sure what transgender marriage is.


#324

Heck, I know of some hippie communes from the 1970’s who might have liked the idea. They could have been a married family of 50 or 60 people. Strangely enough though, now that they are getting old, most of them have sort of settled down into more traditional family groupings.


#325

It seems that transgender marriage might have made same sex marriage superfluous. If two persons of the same sex wanted to marry, it would have been okay as long as one of them identified as the opposite sex.


#326

Always the extreme.


#327

That way, people can make sure that their dog will inherit if there’s no will and they can add their dog to their health insurance so that the vet bills get paid. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:


#328

Why “next up”? There’s no impediment right now to a transgender person marrying another transgender person or a straight person or a gay person. Nor is there anything right now preventing bisexual people from marrying another bisexual person or a transgender person, etc.

Edit: I see now that someone else already responded to this issue.


#329

I don’t know if this would surprise you, but the Vatican only recently raised the equal age of consent in the Vatican City to 18. From 12…

‘Vatican City’s equal age of consent is being raised from 12 to 18 following the announcement of an overhaul of the Catholic Church’s criminal code by Pope Francis’. https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/vatican-city-raises-age-consent-12-18-following-scandals120713/#gs.ZvrRsfFp

And they will allow girls of 14 to have sex on the understanding that they are married (to a boy at least two years older). https://www.ageofconsent.net/world/vatican-city

And can we bear in mind that you need consent from both parties to enter into lifetime arrangement such as marriage. Your cat or your fluffy toy aren’t going to be able to give it. And it is an arrangement between people who do not have an existing relationship. Such as a father and daughter, siblings or any familial combo you’d like to suggest already have. So a mother wishing to marry her son for example would be as nonsensical as her wanting to adopt him.


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.