Why Gays Are Great But Same-Sex Marriage is Wrong

If I had a dollar for every time someone attacked the Catholic Church’s views on gay marriage, I’d be a very, very wealthy woman.

Time for a game of Fact or Fiction!

It’s a sin to be gay
FICTION
It’s only a sin to partake in homosexual acts (i.e. having sex with someone of the same gender). But gayness in itself is fine. The Church recognizes that homosexuality isn’t a figment of the imagination. She recognizes it as a combination of nature and nurture.

The Catholic Church hates gays
FICTION
The Church loves all of God’s children, gay or straight. The Church loves sinners (i.e. ALL of us) and hates the sin (whether that be engaging in homosexual acts or any other sin, like gossiping or lying or stealing).

Gays can’t be Catholic
FICTION
Again, love the sinner, hate the sin. The word “catholic” does, after all, mean “universal.”

Gay Catholics are called to single life
FACT
The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us that gays may approach Christian perfection just as any other person may. The Church teaches that this is achieved through single life.

But what if two gays are in LOVE? It is LOVE after all.

What is love? According to St. Thomas Aquinas, to love is to will the good of another. Think about it. It’s so true.

So, if a gay person truly loves his partner, he won’t have sex with him because gay sex is bad for the body from a biological standpoint. If you love someone, you wouldn’t want him to get hurt.

From the Catholic standpoint, gay marriage is wrong. Here’s the primary reason: Marriage is meant to be fruitful. In other words, marriage can make babies. Biologically, two women or two men can’t make babies together. Gay marriage isn’t fruitful. But always remember: Gay people deserve the utmost respect and compassion, just like any one of God’s children.

25 thoughts on “Why Gays Are Great But Same-Sex Marriage is Wrong

  1. “Biologically, two women or two men can’t make babies together. ”

    By this definition, you are negating the marriage of anyone who is sterile or just doesn’t want to have children.

    And you can do that if you want to. I’m not a Catholic any more, so I can’t really tell a Catholic how they should view Catholic marriage.

    But as for legal marriage outside of the Catholic church? Gays are all over that, and good on them. :)

    • Thank you for feeling comfortable enough to comment with such an opposing viewpoint! It keeps my blog interesting.

      Firstly, if a heterosexual couple just doesn’t want to have children and resorts to contraception (GASP!) or abortion (GASP!), then this isn’t fruitful. It is wrong and sinful. Just as sinful as gay sex.

      In the case of a sterile couple:

      The sterile couple is still OPEN to the possibility of conception (unless there was a vasectomy involved, in which case it’s another sinful GASP! moment). Sometimes couples who seem unable to conceive eventually do have a child. The point is, the sterile couple is using their bodies the way they were biologically intended. It isn’t their fault that they aren’t fruitful. They’re opened to being fruitful.

      Gay sex, on the other hand, will never be fruitful. It can never be open to procreation– that’s simple biology. Furthermore, gay sex doesn’t use the body the way it’s intended. In fact, it is detrimental to the body. True, it isn’t the fault of gays that gay sex isn’t fruitful. However, gay sex allows no chance at all for procreation.

      —————-

      This can also be argued from the Bible. In the story of Sarah and Abraham, they went YEARS without a conceiving a child even though they desperately wanted one. Eventually God gave them a son. Even if you don’t believe this story literally, it symbolically tells us that so-called sterile marriage and sex is acceptable as long as it is ordered toward procreation.

      If this is not clear, let me know and I will do my best to clarify further.

      • My comment was meant in the realm of legal marriage. As far as Catholic marriage is concerned, it can be whatever Catholics want it to be.

        Legal marriage is a right that is allowed to both straight and gay couples, couples with kids and without, who want them or not. And should be, in my opinion.

      • Legal marriages have to draw the line somewhere, though. Otherwise some girl could be like, “Well, I really, really love my brother. So why can’t I marry him?” Or some widowed mother could be like, “I love my son. Why can’t I marry him?” Society has to draw the line somewhere or else the world as we know it crumbles. Why not draw that line at gay marriage?

        However, my true opinion on the matter is that the state shouldn’t be involved in marriages anyway, homosexual or heterosexual. I think the state should only be involved in civil unions to simplify matters. If you’re interested, I did a blog post about this here.

  2. Very nice article and even better responses. I, too, have found that sometimes my answers to objections can be as instructive as the original article was. Best wishes! — Tony

  3. “Society has to draw the line somewhere or else the world as we know it crumbles. Why not draw that line at gay marriage?”

    Society would not crumble if all the people who wanted to marry their siblings did so, as the number is miniscule. That aside, why draw the line at gay marriage? Two people who love each other and could not bring harm to anyone else, living or potential, thru their marriage…seems perfectly fine to me.

    • Okay, I’ll offer some more concrete reasons on how gay marriage hurts society:

      - If, say, a little girl is adopted by two gay dads, she has no central female role-model in her life.

      - An increase in gay couples may cause children who aren’t actually gay to decide to become gay. (I understand that some people are inherently gay, though, and that’s fine.)

      - The world becomes desensitized to the sinful nature of gay ACTS (again, not the gays themselves). This desensitization leads to desensitization towards other sins.

      • “If, say, a little girl is adopted by two gay dads, she has no central female role-model in her life.”

        Why is that necessary? Why is it harmful for a girl not to have one of her parents be a female role model? You assume that a girl should act what is traditionally considered ‘female’. Why?

        “An increase in gay couples may cause children who aren’t actually gay to decide to become gay. ”

        That’s ridiculous, and being gay is no more a choice than being straight is.

        “The world becomes desensitized to the sinful nature of gay ACTS”

        Unless you can demonstrate that such acts intrinsically cause harm, I don’t care if you call it a sin. Something being a sin, according to you, doesn’t make it harmful. You have to demonstrate that.

      • I am not suggesting that a girl needs to act traditionally feminine. But a girl does need someone who she can relate to and thus be encouraged by and look up to. Girls tend to be more emotional than guys (not in a bad way, necessarily), and it’s important for a girl to have a mother who can understand this. Girls also tend to worry about what others think of them more than guys do (and I’m not just jumping to conclusions here, any girl would tell you this). My dad can’t relate to me in a moment of self-doubt…he tries to comfort me, but only my mom really understands. And this argument goes the other way too; I’m not a guy, but I’m sure guys have issues that I could never totally relate to.

        Now perhaps you could argue that a gay dad relates to a girl the way a mother can. I honestly have no idea, but I would imagine this is not the case. I think gays might have an entirely unique situation, different from straight men and women.

        “ ‘An increase in gay couples may cause children who aren’t actually gay to decide to become gay.’
        That’s ridiculous, and being gay is no more a choice than being straight is.”

        Please explain why this is ridiculous. And I understand that being gay isn’t always a choice. Above, I said: “(I understand that some people are inherently gay, though, and that’s fine.)” Here, I am talking about the case where kids who are actually inherently straight DECIDE to be gay because they see it around them.

        “Unless you can demonstrate that such acts intrinsically cause harm.”

        Well, I don’t want to get into a detailed discussion about this, so here is a link from WebMD. I think this qualifies as intrinsically causing harm biologically. http://www.webmd.com/sex/anal-sex-health-concerns

        You mentioned in a previous comment that you used to be Catholic. Out of curiosity, why did you leave (besides your disagreement on Church doctrine regarding gays)?

  4. “But a girl does need someone who she can relate to and thus be encouraged by and look up to. ”

    And you’re implying that a male cannot fill that role. That is untrue, unless you think that all girls have to be a certain way.

    “And this argument goes the other way too”

    It’s not an argument. It’s an anecdote from someone who grew up with traditional gender-roles presented as the only good possible way to be.

    “And I understand that being gay isn’t always a choice.”

    It isn’t ever a choice. Any more than being straight is.

    “Here, I am talking about the case where kids who are actually inherently straight DECIDE to be gay because they see it around them.”

    And if you can demonstrate that ever happening, I’ll take that argument seriously. Until then, I will see it as ridiculous.

    “I think this qualifies as intrinsically causing harm biologically.”

    No, it doesn’t, as being gay doesn’t entail having anal sex, and those consequences don’t happen automatically. Any more than pain, damage or STDs come from missionary sex.

    “Out of curiosity, why did you leave (besides your disagreement on Church doctrine regarding gays)?”

    I didn’t leave about the gay doctrine at all.

    I sat and gave it real thought, and over several months realized that the supernatural claims made by the Catholic church do not have sufficient evidence to engender belief.

    • “And you’re implying that a male cannot fill that role. That is untrue, unless you think that all girls have to be a certain way.”
      And I explained in my previous comment why men can’t relate to girls in the same way a woman can.

      “It isn’t ever a choice. Any more than being straight is. And if you can demonstrate that ever happening, I’ll take that argument seriously. Until then, I will see it as ridiculous.”
      I am not arguing from your typical “homosexuality is a choice” stance by any means. In most cases it is not a choice. But you can’t use the extreme and say that ALL gays are naturally that way. I’m sure there is a small percent who decided to pretend to be gay, just as there is a percent of gays who decide to pretend to be straight.

      “No, it doesn’t, as being gay doesn’t entail having anal sex, and those consequences don’t happen automatically. Any more than pain, damage or STDs come from missionary sex.”
      Being gay doesn’t entail this, but a gay MARRIAGE implies it. Most married couples, homosexual or heterosexual, have relations of some sort. Allowing gay marriage implies that anal sex is acceptable despite how dangerous it is.
      Regular sex, although also dangerous at times, is biologically natural and has the purpose of creating life.

      • “And I explained in my previous comment why men can’t relate to girls in the same way a woman can.”

        That’s a claim. You’ve done nothing to back it up. And I don’t believe it’s true.

        “I’m sure there is a small percent who decided to pretend to be gay”

        I’m not sure. In fact, I doubt it. But even if it were true, then you’re saying you’re against SSM because an incredibly small amount of people might pretend to be gay.

        “but a gay MARRIAGE implies it.”

        No it doesn’t. It implies sex, but there’s a lot of options where sex is involved.

      • “That’s a claim. You’ve done nothing to back it up. And I don’t believe it’s true.”
        I think it’s pretty much common knowledge that men think differently than women and thus relate to their same sex differently than they relate to their opposite sex. Can you give me evidence that this is NOT the case?

        “I’m not sure. In fact, I doubt it. But even if it were true, then you’re saying you’re against SSM because an incredibly small amount of people might pretend to be gay.”
        Well, that’s not the ONLY reason I’m against SSM. It’s just one relatively small factor along with the others I’ve already outlined.

        “No it doesn’t. It implies sex, but there’s a lot of options where sex is involved.”
        Okay, then I’m not knowledgeable enough here. I’m fairly naïve, so I don’t know a great deal about different forms of sex. Seems to me that the safest one would be the one that is biologically natural (i.e. the one that produces kids).

      • “Seems to me that the safest one would be the one that is biologically natural (i.e. the one that produces kids).”

        How is that the safest? Childbirth, while a wonderful thing, occasionally leads to death. Lesbian sex seems to be, fundamentally, the safest, all things considered.

      • Childbirth can indeed be dangerous, but it uses body parts in the way they were intended.

        I don’t even know what lesbian sex is, so I don’t know how to respond to that.

      • “but it uses body parts in the way they were intended.”

        According to whom?

        There are nerves that provide pleasure in numerous parts of the body that one might not think are supposed to be there. Is not supplying those parts with pleasure using them in the way they were intended?

        “I don’t even know what lesbian sex is, so I don’t know how to respond to that.”

        You should learn what you’re arguing against.

      • According to biology.

        The point of sex shouldn’t be pleasure (at least not primarily).

        It should be about the giving of oneself for the other, united in the ability to create life. That’s what the Church teaches.

        Regarding lesbian sex: I have some guesses as to what that is, but I don’t think it’d be appropriate to go into great detail here.

  5. Awesome story, “Love the sinner, hate the sin>”

    Marital Love is: free, total, faithful and fruitful. Without being fruitful, it would be no different than if I were to love my best (same sex) friend. For a marriage, the love must be fruitful, like you said.

    Thank you for the post!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s