Homosexual marriage really wrong?

[vern_humphrey]

They minimally reduce the culpability of the behaviour.

How so? How is a killer, drug dealer, wife beater, or drunk driver somehow less guilty if he has some biological component to his behavior?

The establishment of lifetime, committed, single partner relationships characterized by emotional, spiritual and psychological support and nurture is an objective good from the sociological, psychological, and medical perspectives. We should be encouraging and legitamizing the formation of such relationships for all adult members of society. It is the nature of heterosexuals to pair bond with members of the opposite sex and for homosexuals to pair bond with members of the same sex. When heterosexuals do what is normal for them to do, we applaud, congratulate and give gifts. When homosexuals do what is natural for them to do, we cry “foul.”

Actually, most homosexual relationships are of short duration and often of such a nature that we would call them disordered if they were heterosexual.

Remember that the only thing you can bring with you before the throne of God is the relationships you forged in life.

And your authority for this is?

You leave behind the GIRM, your religious affiliations your codesof canon law, your dogmas, your college degrees, your job titles, your awards and plaudits. When you cry against the homosexual who does the same thing that you have done, you are forging a relationship. Is it one that you want to take before the throne of the Most High?

When I oppose drug addiction, alcoholism, wife beating, killings and so on, should I feel guilty for that?

Homosexual relations are inherently disordered, and to encourage them would be a sin on my part.

Go and learn what this means: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”

Do you really want to assume that holier-than-thou attitude?

 

[drafdog]

Do you really want to assume that holier-than-thou attitude?

I did not originally post that line. God did.

Matthew

 

[vern_humphrey]

I did not originally post that line. God did.

Matthew

***God ***posted

Go and learn what this means: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”

???

No doubt you have His fingerprints all over your keyboard.

 

[JimO]

Go and learn what this means: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”

Matthew, the highest form of mercy is telling someone the truth about what is sin and what is not, for the sake of their eternal soul. This is not to be done in an accusatory manner, but stating the truth objectively. God designed Sacramental marriage to be a lifetime, exclusive, sexual relationship between one man and one woman. Of all the designs of God, this is the one that the most people have problems with. Why? Because people simply want what they want. When what they want is contrary to God’s will, they frequently get defensive and rationalize because they value their own desires more than pleasing God.

God’s design for marriage was to give us an image of Christ’s relationship to the Church and He chose this as the means by which He would create new souls. The primary purpose of marriage is to create new souls and provide a stable, loving family in which to raise children. Obviously, this ideal has been warped due to sin and we have ever-increasing variants of God’s design. A marriage is not Sacramental until it is consummated, showing the primary importance of children in God’s plan for marriage. The mutual benefits to the couple of the relationship is important, but secondary to allowing God to create new life through the relationship. Homosexual relationships cannot produce children, thus, they are not consistent with God’s plan for marriage. Some say that infertility falls in the same category, but it doesn’t because God can grant children to couples with fertility problems.

You might not want to hear all this and you might not agree with it. You don’t have to. Nobody can force another to accept it and we don’t want to force anyone. God wants us to accept Him willingly. But, that is what the Catholic Church teaches and we believe it is the truth revealed by God. We can debate the natural law and all the sociological and biological implications, but that doesn’t change what the Church believes is the revealed will of God. I don’t know how else to say it.

 

[Riley259]

The idea that homosexual relationships are intrinsically
disordered is based on an understanding of natural law which is no longer supported by responsible scientific research. The attraction between homosexual couples is no different from the attraction between heterosexuals as it is based in the structure of the brain itself. It is not a consciously generated response. It is disordered if and only if consciously created on the part of the persons involved.
This is why I insist that we need a new word for a permanent relationship which is analogous to marriage but involves single sex pairing. I agree that calling it marriage is improper.
Let’s get on with the task of helping our homosexual brothers and sisters make better lives for themselves. Same sex pairings are as natural for them as they are for the rest of humanity. Let’s not insist that loving one another is wrong just because they’re not like us.

Matthew

Oh, please, give me a break! What kind of twisted rationalization is that? Even from an evolutionary standpoint, homosexual relations are clearly disordered when looked at in the framework of what’s beneficial to society (i.e., the perpetuation of the species).

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

Let’s not insist that loving one another is wrong just because they’re not like us.

But if the only rubric for a healthy relationship is " natural attraction", then we have to change a lot of laws. In that case, who are we to say that any of the following are wrong:
rape
beastiality (sex with animals)
polygamy
pedophelia (sex with kids)

I think people who do these things would all argue that they were made like this and they can’t help feeling the attraction to these things, so who are we to judge?

Humans judge constantly to decide what is right and wrong. Murder, robbery, fraud, insider trading, identity theft etc. are all considered wrong because we say they’re wrong. So either we have the right to make the rules or we have to say there are no rules.

 

[blessedtoo]

I agree with you there, actually. But what’s to stop two celibate men loving each other and living celibate-ly together? And how does it hurt us to let them get similar tax benefits and whatnot in the secular sector?
.

Let’s remove the moral argument and answer this specific question. The state has an interest in granting certain benefits to married couples. It is primarily concerned with encouraging that children who are born to a man and woman will be raised within a stable family with two biological parents who are married for life. Society depends upon the stability of the family and certainly benefits when more little citizens, taxpayers and workers are born and raised to be productive moral contributors to the state. Nearly all unbiased research has shown that children thrive best when they are raised by their married mom’s and dad’s. This is why the state offers incentives and benefits to encourage couples to marry and stay married.

What interest does the state have in allowing to men to marry?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Let’s remove the moral argument and answer this specific question. The state has an interest in granting certain benefits to married couples. It is primarily concerned with encouraging that children who are born to a man and woman will be raised within a stable family with two biological parents who are married for life. Society depends upon the stability of the family and certainly benefits when more little citizens, taxpayers and workers are born and raised to be productive moral contributors to the state. Nearly all unbiased research has shown that children thrive best when they are raised by their married mom’s and dad’s. This is why the state offers incentives and benefits to encourage couples to marry and stay married.

What interest does the state have in allowing to men to marry?

None at all – homosexual “marriage” benefits neither the state nor the society.

But what it does do is warp the concept of marriage out of recognition. And in that regard, it damages society.

 

[MariaGorettiGrl]

And how does it hurt us to let them get similar tax benefits and whatnot in the secular sector?

Marriage is not supposed to be about tax benefits. We don’t let people get married for green-cards. Why should we let people marry for tax benefits? You want tax benefits, ask for a law that gives you tax benefits. Don’t ask for marriage as a way to achieve these tax benefits.

 

[drafdog]

First of all about the injunction to deal mercifully: The line “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” is from one of the Old Testament prophets and it is quoted by Jesus in the New Testament when He says “Go and learn what this means…” No, I don’t go chasing to my RSV-CE every time I want to quote scripture. I’m sorry that you missed the obvious.

Second, about the pairing of homosexuals: I have made it clear in my previous postings that I am not talking about marriage in this instance. I have repeatedly said we need a new word because we should not call it marriage. Stop putting words or opinions into my mouth by skimming over my postings instead of actually reading them. We need to brush up on the reading skills we were supposed to have learned in elementary school.

Third, in my postings on this thread I have never once spoken about sexual activity either among heterosexuals or homosexuals. Again, I am keeping this out because of the moral issues involved. I am interested only in providing a socially recognized and approved structure for committed, life long, exclusive relationships which are characterized by emotional, psychological, and spiritual support and nurture.

For those who thought that I was talking through my hat in saying that homosexuality diminishes moral culpability please remember that this goes to the relative capability to excercise free will. What exactly constitutes “full consent of the will?” Have you never done something you didn’t want to do but felt compelled to do? Something terribly mundane like taking out the trash or washing the dog? Or done something because you were told to do it, like cleaning your room or sweeping out the garage? Our lives are filled with actions which have not received “full consent of the will.”

As for the scientific community changing the teaching of the church with respect natural law, remember that Nicolai Copernik, Galileo Galilei and others were excommunicated for espousing a heliocentric view of the cosmos. We even went so far as to burn at the stake Bro. Giordano Bruno for heresy because he wouldn’t recant that view.

And VernH, when I said that we take nothing before the throne of God but our relationships with the people that God has placed in our lives, did you stop to think about it or just react? Please tell me what else we can bring. Money and property is out; that’s a no brainer. Titles are out. We have canonized saints who couldn’t read or write their own names so education is out. I can go on and on. What from this life besides how we treat our brothers and sisters is there of value in the economy of salvation?

Matthew

 

[JimO]

Third, in my postings on this thread I have never once spoken about sexual activity either among heterosexuals or homosexuals. Again, I am keeping this out because of the moral issues involved. I am interested only in providing a socially recognized and approved structure for committed, life long, exclusive relationships which are characterized by emotional, psychological, and spiritual support and nurture.

If there is no sexual element to a relationship and no temptation that leads to lust in the heart, then there is no sin. As several people have pointed out, there are many examples of strictly “brotherly” (for lack of a better term) relationships in our society. What’s wrong with the term “friendship”.

But, let’s not be naive Matthew. You state that you are keeping this out because of the moral issues involved. But, that’s the point of the discussion, isn’t it? I think everyone here agrees that in the absence of sexual activity or lustful thoughts, there is no sin in any kind of exclusive relationship. But, if there is no sexual activity, then what is the relationship exclusive of? Other friendships, other human interaction, other psychological and emotional support? It would be a very unhealthy relationship if one expected exclusiveness in these areas when the relationship did not have the intimacy of a sacramental sexual union. So, why do we need a special name for this?

Besides, such an exclusive, chaste relationship is rare indeed and those who want to have some kind of legally recognized category for same-sex partners certainly do not intend this as characterizing what is to be sanctioned.

 

[estesbob]

As for the scientific community changing the teaching of the church with respect natural law, remember that Nicolai Copernik, Galileo Galilei and others were excommunicated for espousing a heliocentric view of the cosmos. We even went so far as to burn at the stake Bro. Giordano Bruno for heresy because he wouldn’t recant that view.

Matthew

This statement, in the case of Gallelio and Copernik is categorically false. I dont know anything about Bruno but given you are 0-2 with the first 2 I suspect there is more to the story than you let on.

With this post you have descended into presentism. That is the idea that we live in the most enlightened time ever and should not be restricted by the ignorant ideas put forth by those who went before us .For 2,000 years all major religions have recognized the obvious -homosexual behavior is a grevious sin. The only rationale for changing this view is the idea we are “smarter” than all those who went before us.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As for the scientific community changing the teaching of the church with respect natural law, remember that Nicolai Copernik, Galileo Galilei and others were excommunicated for espousing a heliocentric view of the cosmos. We even went so far as to burn at the stake Bro. Giordano Bruno for heresy because he wouldn’t recant that view.

Give us a break – neither Copernicus nor Galileo were excommunicated by the Church. Copernicus was on his death-bed when De Relvolutionus was published. Martin Luther published a tract attacking his ideas, but Copernicus was beyond his reach.

Bruno was excommunicated by the Calvinists and the Lutherans. Science had nothing to do with his many problems with every religion he encountered.

And VernH, when I said that we take nothing before the throne of God but our relationships with the people that God has placed in our lives, did you stop to think about it or just react?

Thank you for talking down to us.

Please tell me what else we can bring. Money and property is out; that’s a no brainer. Titles are out. We have canonized saints who couldn’t read or write their own names so education is out. I can go on and on. What from this life besides how we treat our brothers and sisters is there of value in the economy of salvation?

Matthew

We bring our souls. Our relationships with others are at an end – Christ Himself pointed that out when he told us there is no marriage in Heaven.

To claim that we somehow “bring our relationships” before God is nonsense.

 

[estesbob]

Give us a break – neither Copernicus nor Galileo were excommunicated by the Church. Copernicus was on his death-bed when De Relvolutionus was published. Martin Luther published a tract attacking his ideas, but Copernicus was beyond his reach.

.

It should be noted that Copernicus was a Catholic Priest and his research was funded by the Church. It should also benoted that Gallelio had previously publised works supportng th Copernican theory that had not garnered crticism from the Church but had in fact earned him an award from a Scientific Society in Rome.

Bruno was jailed one night at the behest of the Church but was surepetitiously realeased also at the order of the Chruch. He was not jailed for heresy or for espousing any scientific theory. He woud have been better off staying jailed by the Church as the Protestants soon grabbed him and exectueed him.

 

[JimO]

It should be noted that Copernicus was a Catholic Priest and his research was funded by the Church.

In dealing with atheists, I find it funny how these are the only names they ever come up with out of 2,000 years of Church history when trying to show that the Church is somehow hostile towards, afraid of, or otherwise contrary to scientific thought. The lack of examples speaks volumes.

 

[fix]

Third, in my postings on this thread I have never once spoken about sexual activity either among heterosexuals or homosexuals. Again, I am keeping this out because of the moral issues involved. I am interested only in providing a socially recognized and approved structure for committed, life long, exclusive relationships which are characterized by emotional, psychological, and spiritual support and nurture.

Why does society need to formalize such things into law? You mean two friends living in the same house need a legal construct now? Why does friendship need to be exclusive? I cannot see your point?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It should be noted that Copernicus was a Catholic Priest and his research was funded by the Church. It should also benoted that Gallelio had previously publised works supportng th Copernican theory that had not garnered crticism from the Church but had in fact earned him an award from a Scientific Society in Rome.

Bruno was jailed one night at the behest of the Church but was surepetitiously realeased also at the order of the Chruch. He was not jailed for heresy or for espousing any scientific theory. He woud have been better off staying jailed by the Church as the Protestants soon grabbed him and exectueed him.

But when it comes to attacking the Catholic Church, any lie will do.

 

[drburle]

They minimally reduce the culpability of the behaviour.

The establishment of lifetime, committed, single partner relationships characterized by emotional, spiritual and psychological support and nurture is an objective good from the sociological, psychological, and medical perspectives. We should be encouraging and legitamizing the formation of such relationships for all adult members of society. It is the nature of heterosexuals to pair bond with members of the opposite sex and for homosexuals to pair bond with members of the same sex. When heterosexuals do what is normal for them to do, we applaud, congratulate and give gifts. When homosexuals do what is natural for them to do, we cry “foul.”
Remember that the only thing you can bring with you before the throne of God is the relationships you forged in life. You leave behind the GIRM, your religious affiliations your codesof canon law, your dogmas, your college degrees, your job titles, your awards and plaudits. When you cry against the homosexual who does the same thing that you have done, you are forging a relationship. Is it one that you want to take before the throne of the Most High?
Go and learn what this means: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”

Matthew

God desires obedience which includes sacrifice and in return he graces us with mercy. If one is to be a faithful servant of God he/she must sacrifice and continue to strive to be a better Christian. This includes making an honest effort to obstain from sinful nature which includes the action of the same sex lying together. If one wanted to be forgiven for a homosexual action and be in God’s grace he would have to make an honest effort to obstain from the sin. I understand the arguments that are being made, but there really is no gray area here. If a sinful temptation is carried out it is wrong.

 

[estesbob]

But when it comes to attacking the Catholic Church, any lie will do.

Most people have no idea what the truth is. They just throw out names because neveryone else does. Arlen Specter even used the Bruno lie to attack the Church’s oppostion to embryonic stem cell vivisection.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Most people have no idea what the truth is. They just throw out names because neveryone else does. Arlen Specter even used the Bruno lie to attack the Church’s oppostion to embryonic stem cell vivisection.

There are those who adhere to the principle that if you tell a lie three times, it becomes the truth.