Why are Catholics against gay marriage?

This article assumes the reader understands why the Catholic Church says "no" to gay sex? which is the underpinning of the gay marriage issue.

The same sex issue is incredibly complex. I know this from my own experience. I spent a year and half "out" in the queer community. If you are gay, God loves you, just as much as he loves anyone else. He loved me so much that he set me on a new path many years ago. It's been a great journey. I pray that you are given the freedom to make that same journey into chastity.

I think that when we encounter a gay person, we must make the distinction between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of a lobby, because lobbies are not good. They are bad. If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this point beautifully but says, wait a moment, how does it say, it says, these persons must never be marginalized and “they must be integrated into society.”

The problem is not that one has this tendency; no, we must be brothers, this is the first matter. There is another problem, another one: the problem is to form a lobby of those who have this tendency ... so many lobbies. This is the most serious problem for me... Pope Frances, July 28, 2013

The Pope is making a distinction between the person and a political entity.

Our modern world would like to believe there are many truths, but if we are honest about it we see that there is a point at which different "truths" collide.

What is the gay community truly saying about marriage?

Above is a clip from Masha Gessen, a journalist and author who campaigns for same sex marriage, made these comments last May in Australia on a panel at the Sydney Writer’s Festival. She said:

It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago.

In May 2009, one of the most popular gay blogs "Joe my God" said:

... a 1996 study by gay researchers Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen reportedly concludes that "the cheating ratio of ‘married’ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%." The Maine Marriage Alliance does note that this "outside sexual activity" occurs by agreement, but really, so what?

In jurisdictions like New York, Massachusetts, Canada, and the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, almost no queer people are getting married. The gay paper, Xtra, interviewed the queer community about why there are so few gay marriages:

Why most Canadian gays and lesbians are choosing not to marry
MARRIAGE / Too many risks, few incentives
Xtra Jillian Deri /Vancouver / Thursday, September 25, 2008

Expand for full quote

Why most Canadian gays and lesbians are choosing not to marry

"...same-sex marriage is a radical act....it's an assimilationist strategy...For anti-assimilationists, same-sex marriage represents a reform movement that seeks to prove that queers are 'just like everyone else.' But many of us are not like everyone else - and unapologetically so.

...Many queers worry that the cultural adoption of same-sex marriage will lead to a domestication of queer culture.... But does our vibrant queer culture depend on marginality? Hopefully not. And, as Dan Savage has pointed out, marriage rarely meant monogamy for hets, so why would it make us sexually exclusive? 

... queers have a distance from which to critique it [marriage], as well as freedom to create the relationships we want....owning property or having a pet is more of a commitment than a marriage...we have built cultures and communities independent of the straight world, developing and adopting our own creative alternatives: chosen families, open relationships, multi-parent families and domestic partnerships, just to name a few...

...Because we have all the same rights and responsibilities as common-law partners that we would have if we married, there is no need to marry," she says ... in Canada, common-law couples, gay or straight, are entitled to survivor benefits, post-breakup financial support, input into partner care, family and medical leave, adoption opportunities, immigration sponsorship and inheritance rights. ...

...Gay lawyer Ken Smith points to another disincentive to legalize vows. With marriage rights come obligations; you can't opt in or out at will....

...Many queers regard marriage as an oppressive patriarchal institution and have no interest in participating in it," findlay notes. "My partner and I, for example, decided that we would not marry unless there was an important political reason to do so. As my partner says, 'We've been living in sin for too long to change now!'"

...I believe that the more progressive political approach is for the individual to be the basis of social organization instead of the couple...A culture that values the individual instead of the couple as the base unit would offer more support for singlehood and single parenting, for starters...I'd like to see more information, resources and support for all forms of relationships: single, polyamorous, coupled, friendship, chosen family or whatever our queer hearts can dream up."

We got an email that said:

"... same sex marriage is not about if the gay community didn't really want to get married or not, it's about people who are different from the norms (heterosexual) are not discriminated and have the same rights as any other person would have. You disgust me, you Jesus lover. Sincerely, Atheist"

It is an interesting email which begs the question about whether the same sex community ever really wanted marriage, or whether it was an attempt to legitimize gay sex. Legalized Gay Marriage was the result of 20 years of lobbying, court orders, and the marginalization of Christians for their protectiveness of marriage.

STI's, suicide statistics provided by the Gay Community

Canada's largest gay paper XTRA reported, "Canada's health care system is homophobic, says group, Six queers file human rights complaint", Julia Garro, Xtra Tuesday, February 17, 2009." Here's an excerpt:

Over the past 10 years [Government] have contracted with experts on gay, lesbian, bisexual health to produce studies ... issues affecting queer Canadians includes lower life expectancy than the average Canadian, suicide, higher rates of substance abuse, depression, inadequate access to care and HIV/AIDS... all kinds of health issues that are endemic to our community... higher rates of anal cancer in the gay male community, lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer ... more GLBT people in this country who die of suicide each year than die from AIDS, there are more who die early deaths from substance abuse than die of HIV/AIDS... now that we can get married everyone assumes that we don't have any issues ... A lot of the deaths that occur in our community are hidden ... Those of us who are working on the front lines see them and I'm tired of watching my community die."

Expand to see stats they provided
  • Life expectancy of gay/bisexual men in Canada is 20 years less than the average; that is 55 years.
  • GLB people commit suicide at rates from 2 to 13.9 times more often than average.
  • GLB people have smoking rates 1.3 to 3 times higher than average.
  • GLB people have rates of alcoholism 1.4 to 7 times higher than average.
  • GLB people have rates of illicit drug use 1.6 to 19 times higher than average.
  • GLB people show rates of depression 1.8 to 3 times higher than average.
  • Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 76.1% of AIDS cases.
  • Gay and bisexual men (MSM) comprise 54% of new HIV infections each year.
  • If one uses Statistics Canada figure of 1.7% of GLB becoming infected, that is 26 times higher than average.
  • GLB people are at a higher risk for anal cancers.

For the exact quotes, please see pages 3 and 4 of the HRC complaint.
Click here for the whole original HRC complaint document.

Click here for the whole original HRC complaint document. The exact quotes are found on pages 3 and 4 of the HRC complaint.

The health stats are depressing. They claim "homophobia" to be the cause. This confuses me because when I was active in the gay community in the 80's there was more "homophobia" and less social acceptance. Yet the statistics are worse now, even though gay marriage is legal in Canada, and gay sex is pretty well normalized.

In places like San Francisco and the Netherlands where gay sex is normalized, the stats are worse, which creates problems for the theory that the cause of these unhealthy stats is "homophobia"

I think the report from the Rainbow Coalition argues against the assertion that gay sex is equivalent to straight sex, which is the foundation of the gay rights movement. But far from revisiting the whole premise of promoting abstinence, they are promoting a greater share of the public health care money than average Canadians. For the exact quotes, please see the highlighted areas on pages 3 and 4 of the HRC complaint.

All forms of fundamentalism are problematic

Fundamentalist Christianity can be narrow, some fundamentalist Moslems blow up buildings, and communist fundamentalists killed millions to take over Russia. Paradoxically, many in the gay community don't realize that they are practicing a new kind of fundamentalism.

Secular Fundamentalism

It simultaneously belittles religion, and sets forth its own religious dogmas. Secular Fundamentalism claims absolute "human rights" but there is no such thing. When human rights legislation is turned into a fundamentalist philosophy there are only displaced human rights. One group's human rights becomes another group's "oppression."

Expand to see "gay rights" legislation being used against Christians.
  • In 2014, Brendan Eich was forced out of his job as CEO for Firefox, for donating a mere $1000 of his personal money on his own time, six years prior, to the Prop 8 bill in 2008, during a time when even the President was against gay marriage.
  • Scott Brockie owns a little printing shop. A gay organization asked him to publish some advertising. He politely refused given his Christian religious beliefs. He's currently $200,000 in debt from a court battle that he lost.
  • A Christian family had a small bed-and-breakfast business. Two men showed up at their door and wanted to spend the night together in the same bed. The family politely refused, based on their religious beliefs. The Canadian Human Rights Commission forced them to close their business for discriminating against a gay couple.
  • A small Christian newspaper was fined $5000 for refusing to print an ad for gay personals.
  • The Knights of Columbus have a Catholic reception hall in Vancouver. They politely refused to let their premises be used for a lesbian marriage reception, based on their mission statement that says they uphold Christian values. This Catholic organization was successfully sued by the Lesbians in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the Catholic man who refused the rental was fired from his 14 year secular job at Costco.
  • In Philadelphia, 11 people were threatened with up to 47 years in prison each for quietly demonstrating at a public gay pride parade while being hounded and yelled at by the "gay angels." Yet gay activists from Soulforce Albuquerque, disrupted a peaceful meeting of  "Courage" (a group of gay Catholics who meet together to follow Church teachings of sexuality) in a Catholic Church, with absolutely no consequences. These double standards are common.
  • The Press gallery of the Ontario Legislature gave a 20 year veteran member of the press club, who was a Christian, a notice of dismissal because he informed his colleagues of a pro-life story.

Here are Christian business people who no longer have the human right to work without compromising their values. In response to this list, a same sex attracted man wrote to me saying these Christians deserved to be treated that way since they refused to provide a service.

Expand a dialogue with a same sex attracted reader

>>>I read through a couple articles on your website, and while I don’t agree with a lot of it, I respect it. However, I think that the items listed at http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/why_human_rights_violations.php are poor examples. In a business type situation, you have to accept everybody regardless of gender, skin color, orientation, or whatever else. I’m sure you know of quite a few court cases in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere where a person of color was not welcome in a place of business. Some were promptly sued afterwards, and most won. Today this is included in our human rights. The same applies here. If you’re going to have a business, you have to be ready for that. The law is the law after all, right? I feel that by you having your examples there, you’re against that human right. And if you are, I sincerely hope you reconsider your beliefs. Otherwise, I just thought I’d get your take on it.

It's not about rejecting the person... it's about refusing to help forward a cause that many Christians believe is gravely injuring to those who are having gay sex... and so for instance, a Christian print shop owner doesn't want to print a poster that says... "Christians are bigots and gay sex rules." they should be allowed to refuse.
 
I don't think they should have to print something that they know is going to contribute to the spiritual degradation of the person practicing it...

>>Regarding the ability to refuse “helping forward a cause that […] is gravely injuring to those.” Does this mean I can refuse to provide a service for people who affiliate with a specific religion? Using your argument this is justified because the store owner probably thought that if Islam didn’t exist, the attacks on September Eleventh wouldn’t have happened (thus saving lives): http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CrgNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zHIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3737,1341781

That's bizarre reasoning. The principle is not about refusing a person, like denying them a sandwich at 2am. It's about refusing to provide a good or service that is advancing a moral wrong. That's not the case above. There is nothing wrong morally wrong with feeding someone.

However, a Christian printer should have every right to say "I can't print your Moslem pamphet on how to keep all your 5 wives happy." The western market system of demand and supply has a way of correcting itself. If there is a missing service, then someone will fill the demand. That's the beauty of western society. I don't have to provide that service. I lose the income. That is my "punishment" for standing behind my conscience, and I'm willing to lose that income to defend my principles, and some Moslem printer gets tons of business.
 
This idea that Big Brother should get into the supply/demand chain, enforcing its morals upon the religious people that gave North America the concept of Human Rights in the first place, seems quite Orwillian to me. Outside of Christian culture there are no human rights. China, Russia, and the Middle East have no human rights. It is a JudeoChristian concept. The idea of a "secular society" having long term success advancing human rights is far fetched I'd say. It quickly degrads into the kind of pettiness that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is involved with. Like punishing McDonald's with costs of over $50,000 for requiring an employee to wash her hands, which actually happened.

>>I could also jump to an even better example, can I refuse service to a cigarette smoker? That’s been proven to be unhealthy. I think if I did that I’d be sued pretty soon after.

That would be an interesting case... it might make the cigarrette companies wake up, and perhaps the publicity would cause a bunch of people to give up smoking. Such a person might actually be the catalyst to save a life, or many... but in the real world, usually what happens is the person is given other duties in the business rather than sell cigarrettes. That's how it works in the real world.  Jewish orthodox people have tons of rules to follow on the Sabbath, and they simply say "I can't do this, can you do it?" A Jewish lady asked me to dial a number on her cell phone because it was her Sabbath. This was nothing immoral, so I did it no problem. If I had a job that needed me to meet an emergency on Sunday, I would go to Saturday Mass that week.  Mature judgment can tell the difference between a moral wrong and simply being petty.

>>What if a gay couple’s car breaks down in a bad neighborhood and they run to the closest hotel, only to be kicked out. What if then some maniac murders them both? Sure, the murderer is at fault, but the hotel’s staff probably had an idea of what would happen if they kicked them out. (Nothing good, at least.) This isn’t a world I want to live in.

First off, any truely Christian hotel owner would try to help them (Good samaritan). He might say, "I'll give you 2 rooms." He might let them hang out in the lobby until the tow truck comes. That's a really bizarre and far fetched scenario. Nothing like the terrible oppression of these faithful Christians who are being punished by not helping a person endanger themselves with sex.

>>The law is the law after all, right?

The law is a result of 20 years of storming psychiatric associations, lawmakers etc.. It did not come about by civil discussion. Human rights are great things but not when they conflict with a moral right ... They are making laws that you are to be arrested if you say gay sex is unhealthy, but just because it's a law doesn't make gay sex healthy. If they made a law saying jumping off a building is fine, it still wouldn't make it healthy. It's a really bad social experiment.

>>I would gladly stand next to you in front of the Capitol and protest it. Freedom of speech is far more important than anything else in this country.

You've made me a terrific offer. Are you willing to back that up? I'd be glad for you to join me in front of my Parliament of Canada to oppose Bill C250 which has been in force for 2 years. Yup if I went out on the street with a sign that says "Gay sex is wrong" I am legally able to be arrested under C250. Welcome to 1984. And it's coming to a city near you... in the US too.

I think what you are really looking for is true love and you will never be happy as long as you look for that from people before finding it in God. Love does not always say "yes" to every desire of the heart... because the heart is fickle. I promise you, you will not be happy in the long run if you go your current direction. There is a better way. It is a great life.

>>I understand that you have a life other than getting into debates with random strangers. Thank you for your emails and thoughts.

A gay politician from Denmark was interviewed in the Canadian gay paper Capital Xtra.

"[there was] a problem with a private Christian school that refused to include gay studies. 'City council had to step in and lay down the law. Even if you are a private school, you must promote tolerance.'"(Quote from Uffe Elbaek, Capital Xtra! Dec. 1, 2005, pg 15)

In the Netherlands Christian ministers have been dragged to court, and this is promoted all over the gay press in North America. The experience in the Netherlands is coming.

Yet for many "right thinking" religious people...they fear the legislation will reduce their sacred texts to hate literature. And so it should be ... Hasn't our nation's legislation on hate evolved over the past decades to include colour, race, religion, and ethnic origin? Why not sexuality?...Those opposed are expressing their fundamental religious fear of the human body. After all, if you take Christian mythology, the body is sinful and evil - thanks to Eve chowing down on that apple.
(Capital Xtra, Oct. 9, 2003)

Does anyone doubt that priests will be dragged to court for refusing to marry gay couples? The tiny provision protecting religions has been wiped away in Canada by the Human Rights Tribunal in the cases cited above. Yet, even with this clear abuse of human rights legislature, the gay friendly mainstream press continues to portray Christians as victimizers rather than those being victimized. In a ruling on a Christian private school, the Ontario Human Rights Commission posted this statement on their website:

The proper place to draw the line is generally between belief and conduct. The freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act on them. So long as a discriminatory belief is not translated into at discriminatory behavior, individuals and institutions have the right to uphold those beliefs. (Published in Capital Xtra gay newspaper Feb. 22, 2007)

"I was deeply troubled by the lack of any regulatory requirement for private schools to comply with the provincial human rights code." (Keith Norton, former head of the Ontario Human Rights Commission)

Teaching your child the Bible is now considered a discriminatory behaviour. This is a modern day inquisition against anyone who does not hold with the state religion, which is secular fundamentalist. The gay newspaper Capital Xtra said:

"We're working to remake the world in our image."
Gareth Kirkby, Capital Xtra, Aug. 16, 2007

For a list of political agenda items, written by the gay community go here. Now that gay marriage is legal in Canada most religions are at odds with the government putting charitable status in jeopardy. Here is an excerpt from the Ottawa Citizen June 12, 2005.

Churches that oppose same-sex marriage legislation have good reason to fear for their charitable status, a leading gay-rights advocate is warning..."If you are at the public trough, if you are collecting taxpayers' money, you should be following taxpayers' laws. And that means adhering to the Charter," says Kevin Bourassa, who in 2001 married Joe Varnell in one of Canada's first gay weddings..."We have no problem with the Catholic Church or any other faith group promoting bigotry," he said. "We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry."

Hauntingly, singer Elton John revealed the logical outcome of secular fundamentalism.

"I would ban religion completely ... It turns people into really hateful lemmings ..."
(Elton John, quoted on CNN, Nov. 2006)

He would throw us in jail for assembling in public, for not believing his dogma that every form of human sexuality is wholesome. It's like communist China or ancient Rome. Its ultimate outcome is to throw Christians in jail, or worse. Elton John is a great musician, but a lousy philosopher.

On the gay blog www.joemygod.com, a reader commented on the Pope's statement about condoms:

The Poop [Pope] should have his power and riches stripped from him; be tried for Crimes against humanity; sentenced to death; have all RC assets liquidated and given to secular social agencies; and everything associated with Roman Catholicism sent to a museum like that in Cambodia that bears witness forever to Man's Inhumanity to Man.
(Comment on gay blog JoeMyGod.com)

The Alberta Human Rights Commission ordered a pastor to never write, or speak against homosexuality ever again, even in a personal email, and to actually preach against his beliefs. (thankfully overturned at the Supreme Court). The same commissioner completely dismissed a case complaining about a song all about "kill the Christians." He said that exposing Christians to hate speech does not put them in danger. A complete double standard. The ruling was overturned at a higher court, for the time being.

Our culture presents Human Rights as some kind of universal truth. However, Louise Arbour, the famous feminist Canadian lawyer, who is now the High Commissioner of Human Rights, at the United Nations said:

I believe we cannot just export the universality model pretending it doesn't contain a point of view. It's a western point of view, we nourished, cultivated it. It's our baby, our product. We purport to say its neutral but nothing is neutral. (Louise Arbour, Chatelaine Magazine, Feb, 2007.)

Human rights is a Christian construct. Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, the pioneers of the Rights movement, were fighting for principles edified by the Bible. The gay community is fighting for something that is adamantly denounced by the Bible. The Bible is clear on the definition of marriage. (Mat 19:5, Mark 10:7, Eph 5:31).

Gender as a Mr. Potatohead game

It is clear that there is a difference between genders. They are complementary.

Many advocates of same sex marriage think of gender as a sort of "Mr. Potato Head" game where the core of all people is the same and only the body parts are different.

Men and women are different to the core. Any psychologist will confirm this as will the author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.

Sexual fidelity is the answer, not "sexual freedom"

At Lourdes, France on Aug. 15, 2004, Pope JP II said:

... Be men and women of freedom! But remember: human freedom is a freedom wounded by sin. It is a freedom which itself needs to be set free. Christ is its liberator.

All humans have sexuality. It's God's gift, but with any gift comes a great responsibility. Sex is powerful. People are born from sex, people die from sex (STD's). If I get a powerful gift for Christmas, say a car, there are rules that keep me safe. I think it is the same with sexuality. 

For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters, only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence ... (Gal 5:1, 13-18)

Here are some Catholic definitions: Chastity:  No sex outside of marriage, sex is perfectly acceptable in the context of a marriage blessed by the Church. Marriage: An unbreakable lifelong union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Celibacy: Abstinence from sex, and usually implies remaining single.

The Catholic Church has always asserted that chastity, or alternatively celibacy, are the correct expressions of our sexual natures. This is supported by the Bible. It applies to everyone, including Gays, Lesbians, Bisexuals and Transgendered (GLBT) people. I know that would get me laughed out of a university class on human behavior and unfortunately out of many psychiatrist's offices.

Laws currently under attack by gay lobbyists include those that forbid public nudity, public sex (i.e., public washrooms and parks), group sex (i.e., bathhouses), and importation of pornography. (Capital Xtra, Apr. 11,2005) As well they are fighting to legitimize the "sex trade" (male and female prostitution), and lowering the age of consent for anal sex to include 14 year old boys and girls. They are lobbying the school boards for sex education programs aimed at 11 year old girls and boys that include graphic images of how to perform anal and oral sex.

I have trouble reconciling this simultaneous lobby for "sexual fidelity" in a "marriage" while they push for bathhouses, legalization of anal sex with 14 year olds, etc... I'm sorry but these issues are not "Human Rights," these are "Human Wrongs!"

The genesis of the modern "human rights" movement is based on Christian theological principles

The effect on children and families

The gay marriage agenda is not only targeted at adults in society but children also. There is an agenda to teach our children that gay marriage is OK. In some areas children who bring their parent's Christian beliefs about marriage into school are being disciplined. It is no wonder that more and more Christian families are turning to home schooling.

A friend of mine's daughter went to England to visit. While there she stayed with a lesbian couple who were friends with the mother. Although the daughter had always dated boys, she came back saying, maybe I'll fall in love with a woman, would that be OK mom? I can't say whether the 16 year old is latent lesbian or not, but I think it is clear that kids that age are very mixed up about their sexuality. Their bodies are changing at an amazing rate and they are confused about a lot of things.

On CBC radio there was an interview with a lesbian lawyer who told her daughter, "If you come home and say you want to get married, I will be very upset." (CBC "The Current", Dec., 2004) A different interview on the radio featured a 13 year old girl whose parents are a lesbian couple. This girl is totally attracted to boys but when asked point blank if she was straight she said "I think so, but I'm not sure." (CHRI summer 2004) Having been someone who has crossed gender boundaries I can say it is very easy to fall into the culture of our surroundings. Handing the gay community marriage and then handing them kids may be very confusing effect on these children. Human sexuality is a mess.

Was marriage simply a legal convenience introduced in medieval times?

Some advocates for same sex marriage say "civil" marriage was introduced in medieval times simply as a way to divide up property and that it had nothing to do with Church. The history of "civil" marriage is more complex than that. It was intimately related to the Church and the teaching of Christ. Jesus talked about marriage as based on love, not a social legal arrangement. That was 2000 years ago. That kind of shoots down the theory that "love" in marriage is only recent.

Official civil unions were introduced in the colonial period and they included prayers. The Council of Trent officially instituted marriage as a Sacrament in the 1500's but Jesus instituted marriage himself 15 centuries earlier and Christians in the Church followed it from that time forward (Mat 19:5, Mark 10:7). Catholics believe marriage is a religious concept designed by God before any government existed, before any law of man had been written. Marriage is God's idea. Catholics believe it is not for us as humans to tamper with. The word "Marriage" appears all over the New Testament (Mat 22:30, 24:38, Mk 12:25, Lk 2:36, 17:27, 20:34-35, 1 Co 7:38, 2 Co 11:2, 1 Ti 4:3, Heb 13:4, Rev 19:7, 19:9) and it is clearly drawn out as a relationship between one man and one woman. We cannot get around that without throwing out the Bible as "hate" literature, which is exactly what gay M.P. Svend Robinson tried to do. "God forgive him. He knows not what he is doing." (Lk 23:34)

Isn't gay marriage like inter-racial marriage?

Some people think that banning gay marriage is just like banning interracial marriage. The difference is that affirming interracial marriages affirms the institution of marriage, allowing gay marriage redefines marriage.

"My gay marriage won't affect your straight marriage"

Catholics feel it will affect everybody, including married straight people. Public school students will be taught against the teachings of their parent's faith. Kids of gay marriages will influence the belief systems of Catholic kids. The concept of marriage would be weakened and vulnerable to another assault that Catholics cringe to think about - polygamy. This is already on the radar of many activists and I've read about it in several gay publications. It is simply not true that gay marriage doesn't affect others.

Catholics think that God's laws are more important than human constructs

Catholics believe that God is real, and we think he has an opinion about all kinds of things, including our sexual stuff. We think the laws of God's universe are more binding than the laws of man. Natural law does not change just because man says so.

We could pass a law that gravity is not binding on all humans.
But if I jump off a cliff that law will not do me much good.

Making a law that allows gay marriage will not change the truth about marriage. It is just a kind of collective denial.

Lord Jesus, let Your prayer of unity for Christians
become a reality, in Your way.
We have absolute confidence
that you can bring your people together,
we give you absolute permission to move.
Amen