Diversity is the union of the opposite sexes in holy matrimony

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

livingwordunity

Guest
Those who want so-called “same-sex marriage” say they want “diversity”. But a same-sex relationship is about sameness which is the opposite of diversity. True diversity is the union of the opposite sexes in holy matrimony. Marriage is a foundational teaching of the Catholic Church. But men and women joining together for life for the sake of their children in natural marriage predates the Church and predates every government in human history. The union of one man and one woman in natural marriage is in accordance with how the bodies of men and women are designed to fit together and produce babies. Without men and women getting together to make babies there would be no human race which means no governments, no bishops, no priests, no apostolic succession, no sacraments, no Church. Jesus defined marriage as being between one man and one woman when he said, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” - Matthew 19:4-6

“Gay” activists reject natural marriage but want their relationship to be called the same thing as what they reject. It makes no sense.

“Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right.” - Divini Redemptoris, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI on Atheistic Communism

Papal Encyclicals on Marriage
Casti Connubii, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI
Arcanum, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII
 
They’d probably just throw it back in our faces and say if Catholics are truly concerned about diversity they would only marry someone of a different ethnicity. Although, as a Hispanic guy I wouldn’t mind if my future wife was a cute Catholic white girl.😉
 
mikeeh said:
They’d probably just throw it back in our faces and say if Catholics are truly concerned about diversity they would only marry someone of a different ethnicity. Although, as a Hispanic guy I wouldn’t mind if my future wife was a cute Catholic white girl.😉
Click to expand...
I was born an interracial child (black and white), and I married a Mexican woman. So that tactic would backfire back on them.
 
Surely you could say that diversity is the union of opposite sexes in holy matrimony as well as the union of the same sex in holy matrimony. That’s truly diverse as you have marriages of both.
 
livingwordunity said:
Those who want so-called “same-sex marriage” say they want “diversity”. But a same-sex relationship is about sameness which is the opposite of diversity. True diversity is the union of the opposite sexes in holy matrimony. Marriage is a foundational teaching of the Catholic Church. But men and women joining together for life for the sake of their children in natural marriage predates the Church and predates every government in human history. The union of one man and one woman in natural marriage is in accordance with how the bodies of men and women are designed to fit together and produce babies. Without men and women getting together to make babies there would be no human race which means no governments, no bishops, no priests, no apostolic succession, no sacraments, no Church. Jesus defined marriage as being between one man and one woman when he said, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” - Matthew 19:4-6

“Gay” activists reject natural marriage but want their relationship to be called the same thing as what they reject. It makes no sense.

“Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right.” - Divini Redemptoris, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI on Atheistic Communism

Papal Encyclicals on Marriage
Casti Connubii, Encyclical of Pope Pius XI
Arcanum, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII
Click to expand...
I take “diversity” to mean many types of people, in the civil rights context, which could refer to gender, race, disability, sexuality… or whatever the next new “right” is identified. In the case of marriage, the term is meant to mean many different types of pairings. The argument would be that, our society is more “diverse” when there are inter-racial, hetero, homo, differing physical abilities, differing mental abilities, all married and mixed, than it would be with just “healthy”, opposite sex, same race couples, for example.

You are using the word “diversity” in a different way than the civil rights activists use the word.
 
epan said:
I take “diversity” to mean many types of people, in the civil rights context, which could refer to gender, race, disability, sexuality… or whatever the next new “right” is identified.
Click to expand...
You are giving me the popular definition of “diversity” and ignoring the point I made. I’m offering a logical way of looking at it that takes the quest for diversity to the ultimate example of it. Opposites are the ultimate in diversity. What can be more diverse than the joining of two people who are of the opposite sex? What can be more anti-diversity than two of the same? As individuals, heterosexuals are more diversity-minded than homosexuals are since a heterosexual seeks what is opposite while a homosexual seeks what is the same.
 
livingwordunity said:
You are giving me the popular definition of “diversity” and ignoring the point I made. I’m offering a logical way of looking at it that takes the quest for diversity to the ultimate example of it. Opposites are the ultimate in diversity. What can be more diverse than the joining of two people who are of the opposite sex? What can be more anti-diversity than two of the same? As individuals, heterosexuals are more diversity-minded than homosexuals are since a heterosexual seeks what is opposite while a homosexual seeks what is the same.
Click to expand...
I didn’t mean to ignore your point. But I think your point ignores that gender is not the only form wide divergence. Cultural diversity can be more difficult to bridge than gender diversity. For that matter, wars have been fought over religious differences. Gender difference may, or may not, be the ultimate form of diversity. I find it very easy to get along with both genders. I have found myself in embarrassing situations, when I did not understand cultural differences.
 
epan said:
I didn’t mean to ignore your point. But I think your point ignores that gender is not the only form wide divergence. Cultural diversity can be more difficult to bridge than gender diversity. For that matter, wars have been fought over religious differences. Gender difference may, or may not, be the ultimate form of diversity. I find it very easy to get along with both genders. I have found myself in embarrassing situations, when I did not understand cultural differences.
Click to expand...
I never denied that there are different forms of diversity. But what you are talking about with “cultural diversity” can’t be described in terms of opposites. My point is that the highest degree of diversity is in opposites. Do you agree the ultimate in diversity is in opposites and that opposites therefore represent diversity in its purest form?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top