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


The word “natural” has a number of different definitions, one of which is, according to Merriam-Webster:

“existing in or produced by nature : not artificial”


Human beings should not imitate animal behavior.


Merriam-Webster isn’t religious and since this is Catholic Answers, I am responding in a religious perspective


And animals shouldn’t imitate human behavior.


Why not? There are trained animals out there.


You may prove that the behavior exists in nature but this does not prove that it is good/virtuous/moral for humans.


If most humans were as non-judgmental as what my dog is, it would probably be a good thing.


Dogs can’t read or write.


And lots of humans can’t read or write either.


Fortunately, people who can’t read or write can still express themselves.


Animals don’t have souls, thus they are not as conscience of the acts they are doing. Children know deep down murder is wrong, it is innate for us. Homosexual acts are also innate, or at least use to be before secular society has tried to normalize it. Animals do not have this innate characteristic so homosexual acts for them don’t have a “guilty” feeling associated with them. So, you are comparing apples and oranges


"Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” ( Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator’s plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

“Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).”


But since humans define what is good, moral, and virtuous, different humans and different cultures, etc. have different definitions. It is subjective.


Mine does. But she is exceptional.


It may seem that we are picking on you, but I promise you, I distinguish the behavior from the person. I had my own sexual sins to deal with—some of which felt quite natural—and I am still tempted.

We judge the behavior as good or sin, but we do not judge the person as saved or damned—we are solely judged as in a state of grace or state of sin.

This is not the way the world thinks now, however: people are now ‘identified’ by their sexual preferences. In no way is this right. I identify you and everyone else solely as ‘child of God.’


Would you say that morality is subjective to our experiences and that we choose what is good and bad?


If it is subjective, there is no true standard. What was judged good in the year 1500 may be judged bad in the year 2500, and vice versa.

We define what is good by God. He is our standard. If there is no God, then there is no true goodness.


That may be. But, on a Catholic forum, it is not subjective.


God’s truth, revealed in natural and Divine law, is never subjective. Not even a little.


Here is the answer the world needs. Not seeking after novelty or vain imaginings.

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.