Against Same–Sex “Marriage”

May 5, 2026

One Catholic’s explanation for opposing legal recognition of same–sex "marriage." We are in a covenant with God. The rules of the covenant are very important to God, so they should be very important to us, too. If we love our neighbor we should warn them against sin, not encourage them to sin.


General Ken
	You’re a Catholic. Why did you oppose same-sex marriage? Doesn’t your religion preach love? How can you oppose love? What reasons can you have for such a retrograde position?
Matthias
	I can explain my reasons, but we should define terms first. You won’t understand my explanation if you don’t understand the words I use.
General Ken
	Can’t we do this without using complicated technical terms?
Matthias
	The biggest problem we have is a short word you have already used: "love."
General Ken
	Are you suggesting that I don’t know what love is?
Matthias
	Not at all. But to understand each other, we must know what we mean by the words we use.
General Ken
	So what does love mean to you?
Matthias
	To love someone is to want the best for them. To be willing to sacrifice for them. To forgive them if they sin against you. We Christians are commanded to “love your neighbor.” To “love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

	Catholics don’t have a problem with one homosexual loving another homosexual in the Christian usage of the word "love." We are all commanded to love our neighbors. Even to love our enemies. Christians are commanded to love both of those two homosexuals. Clearly we don’t have a problem with them having Christian love for each other.

	We are *not* commanded to have sex with those people, but we are commanded to love them.
General Ken
	Are you opposed to having sex?
Matthias
	Not between a man and a woman who are married to each other.
General Ken
	What about a man and a man who are married to each other?
Matthias
	You already know the answer to that; in fact, this discussion started with you asking me to explain what reasons I had for sticking to my faith while liberals call me names.
General Ken
	Ok, so why do you oppose this great advance in society?
Matthias
	Before we get into my reasons, we have two more points we must establish. First, you asked me for my reasons. What you get will be my understanding of the "why" behind the teachings of the Church.

	There are only two reasons I might contradict the official Church teaching. I might be misinformed. Or I do not properly understand the teaching.
General Ken
	Ok, so you are not an official spokesman of the Church, and you don’t want to cross them. What is the other point?
Matthias
	You should know what the basic assumptions I make and use in the logical analysis.
General Ken
	Logic? I was asking you about your faith. What do reason and logic have to do with faith?
Matthias
	A lot. Theology and science are very much alike. Both use logic, and both use it in the same way when reasoning through problems. The important difference is that in Theology we accept divine revelation as true, whereas science does not consider it to be valid evidence.
General Ken
	Does that mean we are in for a lot of bible verses?
Matthias
	Not too many, but you did ask me about my faith. To start with, just know that God is all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, all good, and loves each one of us. If we find anything that contradicts that, it means either our analysis is wrong, or our understanding of the result is faulty.
General Ken
	Ok. So, given that, where would you like to start?
Matthias
	With a basic question: Why was Jesus crucified?
General Ken
	He died so that our sins could be forgiven.
Matthias
	So God the Father was willing to forgive us our sins, but only if we first killed His beloved Son?
General Ken
	It doesn’t sound too good when you say it that way. In fact, it seems to contradict the assumption that God is all good. Yet, that answer is right out of Sunday school.
Matthias
	And that answer is correct. It only seems like a contradiction. God is all good.

	This only seems like a contradiction because there is some information you didn’t get in Sunday school. Or maybe you forgot about it.
General Ken
	What information?
Matthias
	The Jewish people were in a covenant with God, and God wanted to make some changes to the Covenant; to make a new Covenant.
General Ken
	A covenant, like a contract?
Matthias
	No, very different. We don’t really have a word today that conveys the meaning of what a covenant was in biblical times. The word contract means more of a business relationship, and those relationships were common then, as they are now.

	While some contracts might run for years, most are much shorter in duration. Many last for only one transaction.
General Ken
	Covenants are longer term?
Matthias
	Not just longer term; they are permanent.

	A covenant is a joining of two into one. In some cases it might be just two individuals, as with blood-brothers. It usually included the families, and tribes. They became a larger family, a larger tribe. Members of the larger family were expected to be loyal to each other, and to protect all of the family members.

	The closest thing to a covenant we have in recent memory is marriage. Marriage is more than joining two people together. It also joins two families together. Married people are related to their in-laws. At least, that was the rule before divorce became so common. That is still the rule for the Church. The Church still refers to Holy Matrimony as a "covenant of marriage."
General Ken
	I suppose that is why so many kings married princesses from other countries? It was a way forming an alliance?
Matthias
	Right.

	The rules of covenants called for severe punishments for anyone who breaks the covenant. Up to and including death. This applied to the covenant between God and the Jewish people.
General Ken
	I remember that the Old Testament God was all fire-and-brimstone. Not like the loving God of the New Testament.
Matthias
	As you come to know God better, you will see that there is only one God. It is the same God in the Old Testament as in the New Testament. The love is present throughout both, and the fire-and-brimstone didn’t go away at the end of the Old Testament.
General Ken
	So what were the changes God wanted to make to the covenant? How would the new covenant be different from the old covenant?
Matthias
	God was going to fulfill His promise to Abram to extend the covenant to everyone. He was also going to institute the sacraments.
General Ken
	The sacraments were new with Jesus? Which ones?
Matthias
	Here are two examples. Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Holy Communion at the Last Supper. And He instituted the Sacrament of Reconciliation when He gave St. Peter the power to forgive sins.
General Ken
	Couldn’t God just declare all sins have been forgiven?
Matthias
	Of course. But perhaps He wanted to emphasize that we must keep the commandments. Even with the possibility of forgiveness.
General Ken
	Perhaps? You don’t know? Just guessing?
Matthias
	We can make inferences based on the certainty that whatever God did, God intended to do. We must be cautious; we don’t have all of the information that God has. Even if we did, we can’t see it through God’s eyes. We may be correct in believing we know a reason God did what He did. But God might have had several more reasons for His actions. The reason we identify might be the least important reason to God.
General Ken
	How can you be sure your inferences are any good?
Matthias
	We must test them against all of the commandments, and all of the scriptures. We are wrong if our inference fails to keep the commandments. Or if it is inconsistent with what the scriptures tell us about God’s plan.

	Why don’t I tell you why I concluded that God wanted to re-emphasize the importance of keeping the commandments, then you can tell me if it is reasonable?
General Ken
	Ok.
Matthias
	The Jews were in a covenant with God, and the Jews had broken the covenant. Under the rules of covenants there should be a severe punishment for the guilty. The guilty would have to offer something to atone for their sins; the guilty had to offer God a reason to forgive them.
General Ken
	And He would have such a reason if we first killed His Son?
Matthias
	Yes, but to see why, we should approach it from another angle. What would it take to "make it right" if one side had violated a covenant?
General Ken
	I suppose an apology wouldn’t do.
Matthias
	Not for the serious violations. As it was, the Jewish people had broken the covenant too severely, too many times, and over too long a time. The rules of covenants called for most or all of the Jewish people to be punished with death.
General Ken
	Then there wouldn’t be many Jewish people left to keep the new covenant.
Matthias
	One way to avoid that would be for a sacrificial victim to take the punishment. Someone could accept the punishment for all of the sins. If God agreed, the Jewish people could be forgiven.

	What type of person would make an acceptable sacrificial lamb? What would God demand of such a person?
General Ken
	I haven’t really given it any thought.
Matthias
	Well, consider a similar case. Suppose you are in a covenant with a group of people, and some of those people deliberately harmed you. You survive the attack, and you have caught them all, and have them at your mercy.

	So the villains suggest you punish some random traveler passing through town. Would you accept that as justice?
General Ken
	That’s a non-starter. For the punishment to be just, it must punish the guilty, not the innocent. The random traveler isn’t part of their group, and had nothing to do with their attack.
Matthias
	It must be one of their group? What if the villains offer up some innocent person in their group, perhaps some child who didn’t even know about the attack?
General Ken
	That isn’t really any different than the first suggestion. Again, for justice the punishment must fall on the guilty, not the innocent.
Matthias
	The villains quickly confer among themselves, pick the least-popular of their group, and offer him to your justice so that you will let the rest go unpunished. Would that be acceptable?
General Ken
	No, they are just looking for a way out. Each of the villains deserves punishment, so no single one of them would be an acceptable substitute.
Matthias
	What about a volunteer? If there is a member of the group who kept to the covenant, advised the others not to attack you, and even tried to stop the attack. If such a person came forward and offered to accept the punishment if you would spare the others, what would you do?
General Ken
	At least in that case, I might consider it.
Matthias
	That is what Jesus offered to our Father.

	Jesus became man. He lived under the covenant, and kept the covenant perfectly. Then, knowing what the punishment was, He offered Himself as the Sacrificial Lamb. He willing took the punishment others deserved so that those others might be forgiven. He Who was without sin, and worthy of all the benefits God has promised, offered Himself to suffer the punishment for sins He had not committed.
General Ken
	Buy why would God the Father accept such an offer? It still has the problem that the punishment isn’t falling on the guilty, but on the innocent.
Matthias
	Jesus’ offer of Himself as the Sacrificial Lamb upheld justice. It was in perfect keeping with the covenant between God and His people. And it appealed to God’s generosity and mercy.
General Ken
	Start with justice; how can it be just to punish the innocent and let the guilty go free?
Matthias
	Jesus was not an innocent bystander rounded up for an unjust punishment; He volunteered for the sacrifice. He did not ask that justice be delayed or denied, only that He be allowed to suffer the punishment in place of the guilty.
General Ken
	How does that keep the covenant? Was there something in the covenant about taking the punishment for others?
Matthias
	Remember the two greatest commandments. The first is: love God above all else. The second is: love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus’ offer of Himself was a perfect example of the greatest love you can have for your neighbor. If God the Father accepted Jesus’ offer, then Jesus’ neighbors would have a chance of redemption.
General Ken
	And this appealed to God’s generosity and mercy?
Matthias
	Jesus had kept the covenant perfectly. He was worthy of the rewards God had promised to the faithful. Jesus named the reward He wanted, a chance at redemption for others. He offered Himself as the sacrificial victim. His request and offer did not deny justice, and was a perfect example of keeping the covenant.
		If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask Him?

	How could God the Father refuse?
General Ken
	And God the Father accepted the offer, and let Jesus be crucified.
Matthias
	By us. For our good.
General Ken
	Ok. That seems to explain why an all-loving, all-good God would allow the death of His beloved Son as a way of forgiving us our sins.

	Is any of this relevant to us? You said the covenant was between God and the Jewish people. How does that concern those of us who are not Jewish?
Matthias
	God had promised to Abram that He would extend the covenant to the whole world. Jesus told His disciples to spread the Word to everyone.

	God keeps His promises. We are all now part of the covenant.
General Ken
	All of that doesn’t seem closely related to same-sex marriage. I assume there is a reason you started with the question of why Jesus was crucified. So, what lesson should we draw from this?
Matthias
	Your assumption is correct. I started with that question to emphasize how important the rules of the covenant are to God.

	If the rules of the covenant didn’t matter that much, then God could easily have just forgiven us our sins without anyone suffering. But that didn’t happen. Instead, Jesus suffered a horrible death. This shows that the rules of the covenant do matter a great deal to God, and therefore they should also matter a great deal to us.

	God keeps His promises. But remember, He promised salvation *to those that love Him and keep His commandments.*
General Ken
	I suppose you are going to point out that in the Old Testament sodomy was a sin. But Jesus died so that our sins are forgiven. That should be the end of that.
Matthias
	Jesus died so our sins *could* be forgiven. He did not abolish the laws of the covenant. Sins aren’t automatically forgiven. It is still possible to sin, and we are still commanded not to sin. To quote Jesus:
		Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
		go, and sin no more.
		If ye love Me, keep My commandments.
General Ken
	So you won’t enter into a same-sex marriage.

	Why do you want laws that harm others? Why prevent those who do want a same-sex marriage from marrying the ones they love? Why deny them the benefits of a legal marriage?
Matthias
	If we really love our neighbor, would we encourage him to sin? Doesn’t our love of our neighbor impose on us a duty to speak out, and at least warn against sin? The rush to confer legal benefits to sin may show a fashionable "tolerance," but it does not show any real love for our neighbors.

	This "tolerance" does not help our neighbors, and it harms us. Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil.
General Ken
	So you must be in favor of making sodomy illegal again? Do you want to make laws to punish all sins?
Matthias
	No. We have found it wise to enact some of God’s commandments into our laws. But not all. We could get different laws in different states if we return to enacting laws in a democratic way. Some states might allow same-sex civil unions. Some states might ban both sodomy and same-sex marriage. Some might ban same sex marriage but allow sodomy. Some might encourage both same-sex marriage and sodomy.

	Some states might keep traditional marriage and allow same-sex civil unions. That way they can show fashionable "tolerance" and still give moral guidance.

	The Church does not require our man-made laws to match the commandments. For example, it is a sin to not keep holy the day of the Lord, and it is a sin to take the name of the Lord in vain. None of our man-made laws address either of those sins. Even if some states still have laws against adultery, they don’t enforce them anymore.
General Ken
	But those are victimless sins, or have the consent of everyone involved.
Matthias
	Is consent of the participants your guiding principle? Then should it be legal for an employer and employee to agree that the wage for the employee’s job will be less than the minimum wage?
General Ken
	As a society, we have decided that a living wage is more important than the mutual consent in such cases.
Matthias
	That happened with marriage, too. Some states had laws against same-sex marriages. They, as a society, decided to preserve marriage.
General Ken
	But it was unconstitutional. Those states denied homosexuals equal treatment.
Matthias
	Not true. When same-sex marriage was forbidden, it was not the sexual preference of the parties that mattered, but their sex. Take a simple exercise and see for yourself. Consider these sentences about what state laws allowed and prohibited just a few years ago:
		A male *may* marry a female.
		A male *may not* marry a male.
		A female *may not* marry a female.

	Sexual preference was not a factor. There was equal treatment. Score one for democratically enacted laws.
General Ken
	So what? Only homosexuals would want to be in a same sex marriage. So saying that heterosexuals may not be in a same-sex marriage doesn’t make it equal treatment under the law.
Matthias
	The same thing can be said of all laws. Only those who want to steal someone else’s property are constrained by laws against theft. Only those who want to kill someone are limited by the laws against murder. Are the laws against theft and murder unconstitutional because only some people want to break them?
General Ken
	That isn’t a fair comparison; the murder victim doesn’t give his consent to be murdered.
Matthias
	So we are back to consent? What about the laws that forbid a rich campaign donor from giving lots of cash to a willing candidate? Both consent.
General Ken
	We, as a society, want to keep our elections clean and fair. We have laws regulating campaign finance.
Matthias
	What if we, as a society, want some public good? If that public good is important enough, can we, as a society, can pass a law that prevents consenting adults from doing something?
General Ken
	Yes.
Matthias
	Who decides if the public good is important enough?
General Ken
	We, the people, do that.
Matthias
	It sounds like that is what we, the people, did when we enacted the laws against same-sex marriage.
General Ken
	But we, the people, changed the Constitution. We made declared laws banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
Matthias
	Was that done by “we the people” or by the Supreme Court? It seems like those laws were constitutional for over two centuries, and then suddenly they weren’t.

	The last time the states ratified an amendment was in 1992. The "right" to same-sex marriage was added in 2015. Without ratification by the states.
Blayden Balance
	Sometimes we make such changes to the Constitution through the amendment process spelled out in the Constitution; sometimes the Supreme Court changes the Constitution to reflect what the Court thinks the people should want. In this case, the change to the Constitution and to our laws was decided by a 5 to 4 vote of the Court.
General Ken
	It is now the law of the land. You should get behind it, or at least learn to live with it.
Matthias
	Disagreeing with Supreme Court decisions seems to be allowed. Democrat Party leaders have been known to publicly criticize some Court decisions.

	Perhaps even an ordinary citizen might be allowed the same privilege?

Comments

Do you disagree? Do the arguments presented support the conclusions? Are there any errors? Do you have any counter arguments? Please post your comments, arguments and corrections here.

All comments submitted will be considered to be in the public domain.

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply