Am I discriminating if I believe my marriage has a greater value than homosexual couplings?

[Nate13]

To those who do not believe, marriage consists entirely in the relationship between the individuals involved, and the formal registration or social recognition of this. To a believer, it means something else. Just what, of course, depends on the belief.

You can believe anything you wish about your own marriage without discriminating against anyone else. You can believe anything you like about anyone else’s marriage without discriminating against them. But if you act on these beliefs you may well discriminate. By discriminate I mean treating those things which should be treated equally as unequal. Of course, if you do not think these tings are equal, you have little choice but to discriminate if you act on your belief, just as someone who believes that women are inferior to men has little choice.

Uh can you explain why we should conform to your idea of what marriage is? Who anointed you the definer? The definer I recognize is God, and at least God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as the endower of rights.

 

[Odell]

T. But if you act on these beliefs you may well discriminate. By discriminate I mean treating those things which should be treated equally as unequal.

But who gets to determine what should be treated equally and what should not? What if a male wanted to play woman’s golf because he simply thinks he is a woman? Would you be descriminating if you told him he can not play with the women? What if a white guy claims he is black and wants a minority scholarship? Would you be discriminating if you told him no?

 

[ASimon]

would say that the ideal marriage is gender neutral – not a way for boys to become men by marrying and pledging to care for women. It would say that the ideal marriage includes children only when they have been specially planned and chosen – children would become optional extras rather than the natural fruit and symbol of the spouses union.

Suffice it to say, I don’t view marriage as an institution whereby men learn to be men and care for women. Personally, I think they should already BE men by the time they take their vows. And in a proper marriage, two people should be pledging to care for each other, not just one for the other. That said, I fail to see how this excludes gay couples from consideration. Gay couples (men and women) go through a maturation in their relationship, and marriage can signify a deeper commitment. I see no reason why male couples and female couples can’t pledge to care for each other, and what exactly is limiting them there.

Also, the commitment to care for a child is the commitment to care for a child, whether or not you’re biologically capable of “having” them yourself. I also don’t see why they should be required of any couple. It seems as though you’re foisting metaphysical baggage on the whole idea, that unless children are produced in a wholly conventional sense, it doesn’t mean as much. You seem to exclude impotent couples on the grounds that they at least want to have their own children, and would if they could. Meanwhile, gay couples “would if they could” as well. The fact that brute biology won’t allow for it in the most conventional sense doesn’t give them a pass, in your mind.

It would say that the ideal family need not include a father – a message that is especially pernicious in a country where one-third of births are to unwed mothers.

This clouds the real issue when it comes to single parents. Children without father figures are not at risk because they lack father figures. They’re at risk because they have one parent trying (and often not quite succeeding) to do the work of two. When a boy without a father figure grows up and gets into trouble, society quickly insists that it’s because the boy lacked a father figure. When in fact, it’s really because the boy didn’t have two adults to divide up the work of raising him in the first place. Mothers can teach and model discipline and good behavior just as well as fathers. But one person can’t always do the work of two - and you can’t model how a proper adult relationship operates when only one half of it is present.

 

[Hokomai]

Uh can you explain why we should conform to your idea of what marriage is? Who anointed you the definer? The definer I recognize is God, and at least God is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence as the endower of rights.

Well, where I live the declaration of independence has no such words. Not everyone lives in the US. Why do you think I want you to conform to my ideas? I have said nothing that could reasonably be interpreted to indicate that I think you should conform to my ideas. When you stop being religious, you find that you can actually embrace and uphold the idea of pluralism. I do. I was asked for my own view, which I gave. I had no expectation that others would agree.

 

[Hokomai]

But who gets to determine what should be treated equally and what should not? What if a male wanted to play woman’s golf because he simply thinks he is a woman? Would you be descriminating if you told him he can not play with the women? What if a white guy claims he is black and wants a minority scholarship? Would you be discriminating if you told him no?

All and each of us; yes and yes. But what you were doing would not necessarily be wrong.

 

[johnnyjones]

The “benefit” of marriage . The reason your marriage or relationship has greater importance as a hetrosexual is that it is ordained of God. There is no advocacy for homosexuality in the scriptures, in fact it is condemned. Fornication between hetrosexuals is sinful as well. Also marriage is an institution developed to benefit society.

When I say greater importance, I don’t mean YOU mean more to God than a gay couple, it’s just that their act can’t be reconciled with his word. The word “value” really doesn’t fit what your asking. Your not discriminating. Even if it could be proved your born gay how does that change anything. People are born with all types of aiments, “predispositions”, diseases. Do we throw all reason out the window and indulge the addictive predispositions? Do we provide no treatment for sickness? No.

How does a man who is gay get turned on by a woman when hes been married to her? If hes attracted to men, wouldn/t a woman repulse him in the sexual realm, yet you hear of this all the time. The average straight man is disgusted by the thought of sex with another male ,but more often when your gay your able to have been with both sexes to find yourself or figure it out. It’s a deviation from Gods plan for humans. I don’t care how “old fashioned” it sounds.

 

[Odell]

. Personally, I think they should already BE men by the time they take their vows.

agreed

And in a proper marriage, two people should be pledging to care for each other, not just one for the other. That said, I fail to see how this excludes gay couples from consideration. Gay couples (men and women) go through a maturation in their relationship, and marriage can signify a deeper commitment. I see no reason why male couples and female couples can’t pledge to care for each other, and what exactly is limiting them there.

I don’t believe their actual sexual act can mature to the level that it’s not egotistical in nature.

Also, the commitment to care for a child is the commitment to care for a child, whether or not you’re biologically capable of “having” them yourself. I also don’t see why they should be required of any couple. It seems as though you’re foisting metaphysical baggage on the whole idea, that unless children are produced in a wholly conventional sense, it doesn’t mean as much. You seem to exclude impotent couples on the grounds that they at least want to have their own children, and would if they could. Meanwhile, gay couples “would if they could” as well. The fact that brute biology won’t allow for it in the most conventional sense doesn’t give them a pass, in your mind.

Well no because the sexual act will always be centered on pleasure. The other will always be an object of use. That again is a big issue. Most if not all of catholic morality can be centered on the fact that no one other person can be an object for your own gratification.

This clouds the real issue when it comes to single parents. Children without father figures are not at risk because they lack father figures. They’re at risk because they have one parent trying (and often not quite succeeding) to do the work of two. When a boy without a father figure grows up and gets into trouble, society quickly insists that it’s because the boy lacked a father figure. When in fact, it’s really because the boy didn’t have two adults to divide up the work of raising him in the first place. Mothers can teach and model discipline and good behavior just as well as fathers. But one person can’t always do the work of two - and you can’t model how a proper adult relationship operates when only one half of it is present.

With a culture such as this though it would be well enough that the father pays child support and visits his kids on visitation. It makes fatherhood less and less important and lowers the overal standard of what it means to be a father.

 

[Eugenius]

Fascinating. I think this is the first time I’ve ever read about someone expressing fear that their marriage is less important because of the existance of gay marriages. Here I thought that insecurity was a ridiculous exaggeration. My mistake.

Seriously, the validity of your marriage isn’t a direct correlation to ‘what it’s better than’. A heterosexual marriage has the ability to bring forth children directly, a homosexual person / relationship does not - regardless of whether or not they pursue a relationship or remain celebate.

You’re clearly possessing of a gift that homosexuals are not. Congratulations. Perhaps next you’d like to point out to a short person what you can reach that they cannot.

I see that you are a new member. The fear of being “devalued” is a common theme on Catholic Answers Forum.

 

[Eugenius]

Well no because the sexual act will always be centered on pleasure. The other will always be an object of use. That again is a big issue. Most if not all of catholic morality can be centered on the fact that no one other person can be an object for your own gratification.

How does this really work? When we are in the mood for sex, we have one goal. Getting philosophical over whether we are treating each other as objects of gratification does not enter into our thoughts at that particular moment. I know from personal experience that I am not always in the mood when my wife is, and vice versa, but the Bible tells us to submit to one another so we try to work it out. I’m assuming that homosexual couples encounter the same thing, one partner not really being in the mood but giving in for love and caring for the other. To accuse homosexuals of only engaging in “pleasure sex” doesn’t seem like reality to me. They would almost have to be super sexual brings to both be “into” the moment at the same level of desire at the exact same time.

Heterosexual couple that cannot have children would fall into the same category I suppose. Because they cannot bring the sexual act to its natural fruition, are the now in the “sex for pleasure” category?

 

[Odell]

With a culture such as this though it would be well enough that the father pays child support and visits his kids on visitation. It makes fatherhood less and less important and lowers the overal standard of what it means to be a father.

I wanted to add this

As George Akerloffwrote in Slateover a decade ago,

By making the birth of the child thephysicalchoice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support asocialchoice of the father.

Instead of two parents being responsible for the children they conceive, an expectation that was held up by social norms and by the law, we now take it for granted that neither parent is necessarily responsible for their children. Men are now considered to be fulfilling their duties merely by paying court-ordered child-support. That’s a pretty dramatic lowering of standards for “fatherhood.”

Read more: articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-08/politics/31036663_1_sexual-revolution-moral-standards-marriage#ixzz1s0sucUsf

 

[Odell]

How does this really work? When we are in the mood for sex, we have one goal. Getting philosophical over whether we are treating each other as objects of gratification does not enter into our thoughts at that particular moment.

Well then in this case your not in control of your own desires.

John Paul tells us basically that self mastery corresponds to the fundamental character of the person as a subject. In this case exercising self mastery is a natural method of birth regulation because it is natural to be in control of your own drives and desires. Resorting to contraception, on the contrary, “breaks the constitutive dimension of the person, deprives man of the subjective proper to him, and turns him into an object of manipulation” (TOB 123:1)

So no true gift of yourself is possible without self-mastery. Your no different than the animals who act only on instinct. In other words, if one cannot say no to sex their yes is emptied of it’s meaning. All he can do is indulge concupiscence. “The man who fails to master himself to master his own drives and desires will inevitably seek to master others in order to satisfy those drives.” JPII

Sorry to get all philosophical on you but we are not animals. We have minds!

I know from personal experience that I am not always in the mood when my wife is, and vice versa, but the Bible tells us to submitto one another so we try to work it out. \QUOTE]

Submit does not give one the permission to use ones spouse!!!

We submit to the Christ and His Church the body but are not string puppets.

I’m assuming that homosexual couples encounter the same thing, one partner not really being in the mood but giving in for love and caring for the other. To accuse homosexuals of only engaging in “pleasure sex” doesn’t seem like reality to me. They would almost have to be super sexual brings to both be “into” the moment at the same level of desire at the exact same time.

With God all things are possible.

Heterosexual couple that cannot have children would fall into the same category I suppose. Because they cannot bring the sexual act to its natural fruition, are the now in the “sex for pleasure” category?

You must have missed what I wrote earlier

If they enter marriage wishing they can procreate they are therfore open to the creation of life perhaps praying for a miracle. thye have entered marriage that its a life creating institution and perhaps sadened by infertility but at least they have the frame of mind that it is not simply a romantic commitment.

 

[FSGRY]

LOLhttp://www.50centloseweight.com

 

[ASimon]

Well no because the sexual act will always be centered on pleasure. The other will always be an object of use. That again is a big issue. Most if not all of catholic morality can be centered on the fact that no one other person can be an object for your own gratification.

Why can’t the sexual act between mutually consenting adults be about mutual gratification?

Look, I won’t pretend to be a complete altruist, but I’m not all that interested in having sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with me. I suspect this is true of most people who aren’t either psychopathic or sociopathic. Most people in a relationship, at some level, eventually realize that it’s not totally about them.

I just don’t know why you seem unwilling to give gay and lesbian couples the same credit. Do you honestly think they’re just using each other for their own hedonistic ends in regard to the sexual act, and could care less if the other person finds it as pleasurable or meaningful as they do?

 

[vera_dicere]

Marriage > Homosexual union.

Always.

There’s no way an abdomination can superseede in value the Holy insitution of Marriage ordained by God.

 

[Odell]

Sorry I have been busy the past few days

Why can’t the sexual act between mutually consenting adults be about mutual gratification?

What’s to stop one spouse from allowing themselves to be used to get what they want in the relationship?

Each is concerned about their gratification but at the same time consents to serve someone else’s egoism, because this provides an opportunity for such gratification for themselves. And only as so long as it does.

St Josemaria Escrivia once said
“When you have sought the company of sensual satisfaction, what loneliness afterward.”

I can’t help but think how many people feel lonely after getting what they wanted from the conjugal act. Unfortunately many woman fell this way or have at least expeienced it.

Look, I won’t pretend to be a complete altruist, but I’m not all that interested in having sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with me. I suspect this is true of most people who aren’t either psychopathic or sociopathic. Most people in a relationship, at some level, eventually realize that it’s not totally about them.

I know that you aren’t and I understand truly. Your right most don’t want someone to have sex with them that truly don’t want to be there. I think this is due to the fact that we don’t want to be used. That why I think we need an anchor to keep the act from drifting into mutual masturbation.

What does a contraceptive or homosexual have in the act of intercourse to kelp this from happening?

I just don’t know why you seem unwilling to give gay and lesbian couples the same credit. Do you honestly think they’re just using each other for their own hedonistic ends in regard to the sexual act, and could care less if the other person finds it as pleasurable or meaningful as they do?

Without the possibility of generating life in the conjugal act you don’t have anything to stop the act from becoming egocentric. What does a contraceptive or homosexual couple have to keep the act from turning into *using another from acheiving their own purpose?

The two may care about and wish each other well; but what unites them is primarily pleasure.
What happens the moment they cease to match and be of advantage to one another? Nothing at all love wil be no more.*
Since this kind of relationship is still dependent on what I get out of others, it prevents me from truly being in communion with them and being committed to them as a person. A person in their fullest sense. Their relationship will be based on a mutual use rather than on a committed love or true communion of persons all due to the fact that there is nothing there to keep the act from being limited to themselves and their own gratification.

 

[Odell]

ASimon you still around?

 

[JimG]

Marriage between man and woman has of course, for millennia, been the basis of society. That is why marriage has been recognized and privileged by the state, again for millenia. Marriages generate and educate the next generation of citizens–and taxpayers–without which any society quickly dies out. Even in times and places where homosexual behaviors were accepted, such couplings were never given the benefits of marriage, because they were of no particular benefit to the state.

Families, begun by a man and woman, have always formed the basis of civilization. It’s only recently that governments have even thought that they might do a better job of this than moms and dads.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

Those who advocate homosexual marriage whould you say my marriage holds little to no value over others? Would you say it’s always held little to no value over other relationships, or would you say that it may have been important once but it’s not important now? If people are saying that the government should hold special rules for marriage how are you not discriminating upon them essencially saying they aren’t that special or they aren’t special in a way that governments should favorite one over another?

Homosexual activity is an unnatural and immoral act. Not on the same- or anywhere near - the same level as genuine marriage of a man and a woman.

Let’s be clear or at least unambiguous about what we believe and say as Catholics…the original Christians.

 

[ASimon]

Sorry, I missed the reply.

Sorry I have been busy the past few days

What’s to stop one spouse from allowing themselves to be used to get what they want in the relationship?

Each is concerned about their gratification but at the same time consents to serve someone else’s egoism, because this provides an opportunity for such gratification for themselves. And only as so long as it does.

I know that you aren’t and I understand truly. Your right most don’t want someone to have sex with them that truly don’t want to be there. I think this is due to the fact that we don’t want to be used. That why I think we need an anchor to keep the act from drifting into mutual masturbation.

What does a contraceptive or homosexual have in the act of intercourse to kelp this from happening?

Without the possibility of generating life in the conjugal act you don’t have anything to stop the act from becoming egocentric. What does a contraceptive or homosexual couple have to keep the act from turning into *using another from acheiving their own purpose?

The two may care about and wish each other well; but what unites them is primarily pleasure.
What happens the moment they cease to match and be of advantage to one another? Nothing at all love wil be no more.*
Since this kind of relationship is still dependent on what I get out of others, it prevents me from truly being in communion with them and being committed to them as a person. A person in their fullest sense. Their relationship will be based on a mutual use rather than on a committed love or true communion of persons all due to the fact that there is nothing there to keep the act from being limited to themselves and their own gratification.

When two people do stop thinking about each other, and start making the sexual act about themselves, you’re right, that is generally a problem. What I’m still missing here is seeing adequate support for this idea that any sexual relationship that isn’t explicitly about conceiving children is destined to become an imbalanced, masturbatory exercise.

You keep asking, “What would stop it from happening?” What would stop it is the same basic decency that all healthy, straight couples share. Sometimes, it goes wrong - one person stops putting their share in, and the relationship does suffer as a result. But we don’t need to keep thinking about this in the abstract. Countless straight couples across the world enjoy mutually gratifying, sexually active relationships that don’t focus at all on conceiving children. So we know it can work, and it isn’t a revelation when it does.

 

[nordskoven]

Marriage, the first sacrament, integrates and consecrates the union of one male and one female in a public pledge of mutual aid towards the end of raising the next generation. As an integration program, THE integration program, the male-to-male or female-to-female bond being a universal that needs no special help from society, the special challenges of female-male bonding must be continued and preserved. Promoting homosexual “marriage” is insulting, like having an affirmative action program for Caucasians. This is cultural predation by homosexuals who have never had “gay marriage,” yet is understandable in the sterile, sex-only contracepting marriages seen in Catholic circles that homosexuals should ape this deformed modern concept of marriage.