A Gay Clarification [Serious]

[casabolg]

So I wish to know if I understand the situation correctly and fully. Please assist:

Immediately, homosexuality as in the sin refers to homosexual sex. This is not the orientation, the love, or the relationships, but primarily the sex. Views on the orientation/love/relationships vary between people but are not doctrinal.

The issue of the sex itself is an issue of taking sex out of its purposes, which would be both the procreative and uniting in nature. Acceptance of such an thing is akin to the welcoming of sex via contraceptive, masturbation, and the like. However, teleologically the possibility of being barren or sterile does not take away ones ability to have sex according to their nature as the messing up of organs is not a fault of their will. All parts with real agency act correctly and so no moral bad could be said of those involved given all else is normal.

In terms of marriage, marriage is the union of differing complementary sexes as one. The intent is to join both people together and give them the right for each other in sex for the intent of both uniting and procreation. This, again, does not mean that the sterile/barren are left out in the cold again because their state is not part of their moral agency. However, impotence can be an issue towards not being married as they cannot fulfill the sexual end.

As an aside I’m a bit stuck on this issue as it seems plenty confusing to me. Infertility is not an issue in marriage because it is not the moral agent’s fault for causing the issue at hand and being able to complete one of the purposes of the marriage however impotency is an issue despite also not being in control of the situation either. It seems contradictory to me to be okay with one group not being able to complete purposes related to marriage and not group with another not being able to complete another. Could someone assist me here in understanding?

To continue on marriage, the current teaching (though I am not sure if it is doctrinal or just very strong opinion - please clarify) is that marriage’s union of man and woman makes for the ideal situation for raising children, resting on the notion of an innate fatherhood and motherhood which work in union to fully socialize a child properly. It is for this reason that, while possible, any other set up for raising children is seen as incomplete and thus not acceptable for the sake of the children being raised. However if the children are in a worse case overall is it still seen as acceptable for these incomplete family arrangements to care for the child as it is still preferable to their previous state.

I have another issue now: Does not the potential for these arrangements to assist those children lacking in socialization validate things such as gay marriage? Granted these incomplete unions can still be seen as not ideal (similar to that of a single mother with kids being not ideal) but if it is indeed preferable for the child to be raised in this manner than what they once were then we do have a set of people raising a child which constitutes family in all degrees but the procreative section of it and potentially the union of “parents” not having sex. Adoption itself seems to put a hole in this situation since raising children in any set up can constitute a “family” and then we need to either separate marriage from family as a whole or all possible set up need to seen as possible for marriage though one set up being ideal.

Further, if we understand fatherhood and motherhood as proper for socialization, what argument is there for “one father and one mother” rather than two of each in a four person union? Surely the sexual end is the core issue here but I’m not sure how it draws distinction.

Thanks for reading and I’m hoping for some solid replies.

 

[e_c]

I see 4 questions.

1. Why is impotence a diriment impediment to marriage?
2. Could it be justifiable to put a child in a household with a SSA couple?
3. Could the legitimacy of the foregoing legitimize gay marriage?
4. Something with a four-person union… not clear on what you are asking.
5. Marriage exists because the fruits of the marital act need protection, education, nourishment, upbringing, etc. Basically, children need a stable environment to flourish, and not to commit to a lifelong relationship before engaging in the marital act is therefore contrary to charity (toward the potential children). In the case of infertility, as you stated, there is a deficiency in the act. But it is because the marital act is able to be completed that “the two become one flesh,” even though the rest of the links of the reproductive chain are broken. Since this act is directly ordered toward children by its nature, it requires that bond before completion, which is why one can’t morally presume on infertility to go around fornicating… One must be open to life in the act, even though one knows it will not come. However, with impotence there is simply no act to begin with.
6. Yes in some individual extreme circumstances, but not in an institutionalized way. This is not only because it would generally do harm to the individuals involved but also because of the scandal given. There is nothing here really rising to the level of doctrine (nor with gay marriage), since it is not nearly large enough of a problem world-wide, nor is it unclear from what is already in the Church’s doctrine what the right path is. However, there is a large corpus of teaching on these matters which require religious obedience.
7. No, since it is an institutionalization of sin that causes grave scandal.
8. ?

Helpful?

 

[GEddie]

Your point 1)

Marriage requires physical consummation, therefore, inability to perform it rules a marriage out.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Gorgias]

As an aside I’m a bit stuck on this issue as it seems plenty confusing to me. Infertility is not an issue in marriage because it is not the moral agent’s fault for causing the issue at hand and being able to complete one of the purposes of the marriage

This is your problem. Infertility is not an impediment to marriage because all that’s required in marriage is keeping the marital act open to conception. Infertility doesn’t impede that requirement.

however impotency is an issue

Antecedent and perpetual impotency is an issue, because unlike infertility, it does impede the ability to perform the marital act.

Further, if we understand fatherhood and motherhood as proper for socialization, what argument is there for “one father and one mother” rather than two of each in a four person union? Surely the sexual end is the core issue here but I’m not sure how it draws distinction.

Marriage and family life images God and fulfills God’s command to ‘be fertile and multiply.’ As Jesus pointed out, the marriage of one man and one woman is God’s design for us. The argument for “why two and not four or six or eight or twenty?” is “because God has revealed in His Word that it’s His plan for us.”

 

[Antegin]

So I wish to know if I understand the situation correctly and fully. Please assist:

Immediately, homosexuality as in the sin refers to homosexual sex. This is not the orientation, the love, or the relationships, but primarily the sex. Views on the orientation/love/relationships vary between people but are not doctrinal.

Homosexuality, also referred to as same sex attraction is the psychological sexual preference for members of the same sex. Homosexuality in the absence of sexual activity, IS NOT A SIN. Doctrine on this issue goes back to the creation of man. God created man in His own image, man and woman, in a permanent union open to new life. Second chapter of Genesis, it doesn’t get much older that this.

Entering into a SSA sexual relationship distorts and vandalized the image of God, recreating that image as we see fit. The dysfunctions that result in SSA, especially in the environment of a pseudo marriage, will be passed on to children. The children will not necessarily have SSA tendencies, but sequella do result from the disordered lifestyle.

The issue of the sex itself is an issue of taking sex out of its purposes, which would be both the procreative and uniting in nature. Acceptance of such an thing is akin to the welcoming of sex via contraceptive, masturbation, and the like. However, teleologically the possibility of being barren or sterile does not take away ones ability to have sex according to their nature as the messing up of organs is not a fault of their will. All parts with real agency act correctly and so no moral bad could be said of those involved given all else is normal.

In terms of marriage, marriage is the union of differing complementary sexes as one. The intent is to join both people together and give them the right for each other in sex for the intent of both uniting and procreation. This, again, does not mean that the sterile/barren are left out in the cold again because their state is not part of their moral agency. However, impotence can be an issue towards not being married as they cannot fulfill the sexual end.

As an aside I’m a bit stuck on this issue as it seems plenty confusing to me. Infertility is not an issue in marriage because it is not the moral agent’s fault for causing the issue at hand and being able to complete one of the purposes of the marriage however impotency is an issue despite also not being in control of the situation either. It seems contradictory to me to be okay with one group not being able to complete purposes related to marriage and not group with another not being able to complete another. Could someone assist me here in understanding?

The ability to consummate the marriage is necessary to bond the man and woman. It is the man and woman in the conjugal union that is the image of God. Sterility, while unfortunate, does not take away from this. There are many stories in the Bible of women who were barren who gave birth to exceptional children.

To continue on marriage, the current teaching (though I am not sure if it is doctrinal or just very strong opinion - please clarify) is that marriage’s union of man and woman makes for the ideal situation for raising children, resting on the notion of an innate fatherhood and motherhood which work in union to fully socialize a child properly. It is for this reason that, while possible, any other set up for raising children is seen as incomplete and thus not acceptable for the sake of the children being raised. However if the children are in a worse case overall is it still seen as acceptable for these incomplete family arrangements to care for the child as it is still preferable to their previous state.

I have another issue now: Does not the potential for these arrangements to assist those children lacking in socialization validate things such as gay marriage? Granted these incomplete unions can still be seen as not ideal (similar to that of a single mother with kids being not ideal) but if it is indeed preferable for the child to be raised in this manner than what they once were then we do have a set of people raising a child which constitutes family in all degrees but the procreative section of it and potentially the union of “parents” not having sex. Adoption itself seems to put a hole in this situation since raising children in any set up can constitute a “family” and then we need to either separate marriage from family as a whole or all possible set up need to seen as possible for marriage though one set up being ideal.

Further, if we understand fatherhood and motherhood as proper for socialization, what argument is there for “one father and one mother” rather than two of each in a four person union? Surely the sexual end is the core issue here but I’m not sure how it draws distinction.

Thanks for reading and I’m hoping for some solid replies.

 

[casabolg]

1. Marriage exists because the fruits of the marital act need protection, education, nourishment, upbringing, etc. Basically, children need a stable environment to flourish, and not to commit to a lifelong relationship before engaging in the marital act is therefore contrary to charity (toward the potential children). In the case of infertility, as you stated, there is a deficiency in the act. But it is because the marital act is able to be completed that “the two become one flesh,” even though the rest of the links of the reproductive chain are broken. Since this act is directly ordered toward children by its nature, it requires that bond before completion, which is why one can’t morally presume on infertility to go around fornicating… One must be open to life in the act, even though one knows it will not come. However, with impotence there is simply no act to begin with.

Thank you for explaining but I have a bit of an issue here. However, it seems that adoption and sterilization surgery do put a hole in this. If marriage exists because the fruits of the marital act needs protection, nourishment, upbringing, and education then this is equal in saying “marriage is for raising children” which is possible outside of the fruits of the sexual act due to adoption. Further, if one were to have sterilization surgery (that is to say, completely lose all hope of fertility beyond any possible doubt) then there is no explanation as for why marriage exists. You’re basically protecting people for having childless sex. This may be acceptable from a teleological view but otherwise it is simply preferencing one type of non-procreative sex over another. However, for those naturally infertile who have hope for a miracle of some sort I can see how the structure you mention is nice.

1. Yes in some individual extreme circumstances, but not in an institutionalized way. This is not only because it would generally do harm to the individuals involved but also because of the scandal given. There is nothing here really rising to the level of doctrine (nor with gay marriage), since it is not nearly large enough of a problem world-wide, nor is it unclear from what is already in the Church’s doctrine what the right path is. However, there is a large corpus of teaching on these matters which require religious obedience.

So what you say here is that child raising is ideal between a male-female pair and even in the case of something not that structure raising a child (for whatever reason) cannot be given the legal support for worry of the purpose of the institution being taken the wrong way and enabling things not that original ideal? Did I get that right?
I mean no offense .

1. No, since it is an institutionalization of sin that causes grave scandal.

Could you explain what you mean here or is that basically what I got at in the post above?

1. ?

Since the value of raising the child is not just in having your natural parents but having a male-female pair I am asking why specifically a pair.

 

[casabolg]

Your point 1)

Marriage requires physical consummation, therefore, inability to perform it rules a marriage out.

ICXC NIKA

I understand that generally, as it is grounds for annulment in some countries and by (I believe) Canon Law. However, then a couple issues come about:

1. Is the consummation a goal within itself? If it is, why?
2. If the consummation is not a goal within itself but the potential towards having children is along with the uniting of the two involved does that mean that sterilization surgery (such as the removal of organs required for reproduction) rather than natural infertility is effects this ruling?
3. If the consummation is a goal within itself and not the potential towards having children then why is there a binding institution around it?
4. If the consummation is a major part of marriage because it has the potential towards having children and uniting the couple then is the only practical difference between a male-female couple that adopts and has no biological children and a male-male couple that adopts and has no biological children that the male-female couple are still open towards having biological children possibly?

 

[e_c]

Thank you for explaining but I have a bit of an issue here. However, it seems that adoption and sterilization surgery do put a hole in this. If marriage exists because the fruits of the marital act needs protection, nourishment, upbringing, and education then this is equal in saying “marriage is for raising children” which is possible outside of the fruits of the sexual act due to adoption. Further, if one were to have sterilization surgery (that is to say, completely lose all hope of fertility beyond any possible doubt) then there is no explanation as for why marriage exists. You’re basically protecting people for having childless sex. This may be acceptable from a teleological view but otherwise it is simply preferencing one type of non-procreative sex over another. However, for those naturally infertile who have hope for a miracle of some sort I can see how the structure you mention is nice.

The office of marriage is based on the teleology of the marital act in principle… “This act is ordered toward this good, therefore those participating in this act must be prepared to undertake the protection of this good out of charity.” If one is presuming on infertility in the marital act, he/she is effectively contracepting. (Sin is primarily in the will!) Adoption has nothing to do directly with the marital act, it is just protecting someone else’s child. I can own a gun and not be in the military, but we still should have a military.

So what you say here is that child raising is ideal between a male-female pair and even in the case of something not that structure raising a child (for whatever reason) cannot be given the legal support for worry of the purpose of the institution being taken the wrong way and enabling things not that original ideal? Did I get that right?
I mean no offense .

Yeah basically. Although one can imagine a truly extreme case where it is better for this individual child to go to this particular SSA environment.

Could you explain what you mean here or is that basically what I got at in the post above?

You pretty much got it. The sin is scandal - to the child first, to society second. It leads to sin directly through imitation and indirectly through occasion.

Since the value of raising the child is not just in having your natural parents but having a male-female pair I am asking why specifically a pair.

A man and a woman have children together without help from others. They will therefore be inclined naturally toward the protection of those children more than others, in general. You care about your own kids more than another’s, or else we say you’re messed up… we can see it is not right. But really, it takes more than parents to raise a child well… teachers, peers, a culture, etc.

 

[e_c]

I understand that generally, as it is grounds for annulment in some countries and by (I believe) Canon Law. However, then a couple issues come about:

There is nothing to annul. A “ratum et tantum” marriage is dissolved, not annulled.

1. Is the consummation a goal within itself? If it is, why?

It is more like the signing of a contract.

1. If the consummation is not a goal within itself but the potential towards having children is along with the uniting of the two involved does that mean that sterilization surgery (such as the removal of organs required for reproduction) rather than natural infertility is effects this ruling?

All that is needed for a true consummation is the ability to carry out the marital act, regardless of its foreseen consequences. Now I am wondering however if a consummation is real if a physical barrier is used as a contraceptive…

1. If the consummation is a goal within itself and not the potential towards having children then why is there a binding institution around it?

I don’t understand.

1. If the consummation is a major part of marriage because it has the potential towards having children and uniting the couple then is the only practical difference between a male-female couple that adopts and has no biological children and a male-male couple that adopts and has no biological children that the male-female couple are still open towards having biological children possibly?

Basically answered in my previous post.