Homosexual Marriage

[Discerning13]

Hello, today I was talking to a fellow about the morality of homosexual marriage, I argued that the purpose of sex is to form a loving bond between two married adults and to procreate, anything other than this would be contrary to the natural purpose.

Just like an axe is used for the purpose of chopping down tree, if he attempt to break a rock with it, it will be dulled and the purpose for which that axe was made will no longer exist.

The person in response said, “Wouldn’t that mean that infertile men shouldn’t be able to marry either?”

I read in the Catechism that infertile couples may still be lawfully married…How would I respond to the persons claim?

 

[mikeeh]

In an ideal world the man wouldn’t know he was infertile until after he was married. No offense to homosexuals but all the sexual positions they can think of and do don’t compare to penile-vaginal sexual intercourse. Also, the vagina absorbs semen and proteins in the semen shoot straight to the woman’s brain telling her to ovulate, so while infertility may be a issue with either the man or woman they are still bonding with each other both physically and spiritually in a way homosexuals cannot.

 

[rossum]

In an ideal world the man wouldn’t know he was infertile until after he was married.

A post-menopausal woman knows that she is infertile. Some others also, such as after an orchidectomy or hysterectomy. You cannot base a general argument on a subset of cases.

No offense to homosexuals but all the sexual positions they can think of and do don’t compare to penile-vaginal sexual intercourse.

No doubt a homosexual will tell you that their version is superior. You would really have to ask a bisexual to see which is better, and even then that would only be one person’s opinion.

rossum

 

[Cathoholic]

From Casti Connubii (A Catholic Church Papal Document) on distorting the conjugal or marital act in a way that is not in conformity with nature (in this case, regarding contraception but the context concerns violation of nature as well) . . . .

1. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.
2. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.”[45]
3. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.
4. We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God; much more, that they keep themselves immune from such false opinions, in no way conniving in them. If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: "They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.[46]
5. As regards the evil use of matrimony, to pass over the arguments which are shameful, not infrequently others that are false and exaggerated are put forward. .

 

[LaLaLa49]

In an ideal world the man wouldn’t know he was infertile until after he was married. No offense to homosexuals but all the sexual positions they can think of and do don’t compare to penile-vaginal sexual intercourse. Also, the vagina absorbs semen and proteins in the semen shoot straight to the woman’s brain telling her to ovulate, so while infertility may be a issue with either the man or woman they are still bonding with each other both physically and spiritually in a way homosexuals cannot.

Huuh…How about married straight couples that practise anal and oral sex? Because that’s what homosexuals do,isn’t it? Is it okay for straight couples to do that, just because they’re straight, and not for homosexuals? Because both “corrupt” normal nice sex, for the purpose of reproduction. [pfft, of course, other kinds too, but nevermind them XD]

 

[Padster]

In an ideal world the man wouldn’t know he was infertile until after he was married.

But it isn’t an ideal world. I know I am infertile and I am not married. What to do?

Best wishes,
Padster

 

[RedFox0456]

A couple thoughts here:

On a man or woman knowing they are infertile.
1 - There is no way for the Church to know this information unless it has been presented to them and therefore no reason to disallow the union
2 - While a man or woman may be infertile, there is always the possibility of fertility being restored by the grace of God. This is simply not possible in a homosexual union.

On heterosexual immorality
1 - It is indeed wrong for a heterosexual couple to have sex outside of marriage
2 - It is indeed wrong for a heterosexual couple to have sex while artificially blocking the reproductive process
3 - It is indeed wrong for a heterosexual couple to engage in sexual acts that would make it impossible to procreate
4 - Just because heterosexual couples disobey the natural law doesn’t mean the Church should embrace homosexual intercourse. ie - two wrongs don’t make a right
5 - With a heterosexual couple, unless they are advertising their behavior, there is no way to know that they are sinning. This is not the case with a homosexual couple, unless they are living in a chaste manner.

 

[Padster]

A couple thoughts here:

On a man or woman knowing they are infertile.
1 - There is no way for the Church to know this information unless it has been presented to them and therefore no reason to disallow the union

So, I should be economical with the truth and I’ll be in the clear? Thanks. I’ll remember that one with other ‘sins’.

2 - While a man or woman may be infertile, there is always the possibility of fertility being restored by the grace of God. This is simply not possible in a homosexual union.

In the words of Dougal Maguire, that is a long shot. I have been infertile now for 43 years. I suppose if God was going to act He would have done something when I was a teenager to give me a chance. Acting now is extracting urine.

Best wishes,
Padster

 

[Neofight]

Hello, today I was talking to a fellow about the morality of homosexual marriage, I argued that the purpose of sex is to form a loving bond between two married adults and to procreate, anything other than this would be contrary to the natural purpose.

Just like an axe is used for the purpose of chopping down tree, if he attempt to break a rock with it, it will be dulled and the purpose for which that axe was made will no longer exist.

The person in response said, “Wouldn’t that mean that infertile men shouldn’t be able to marry either?”

I read in the Catechism that infertile couples may still be lawfully married…How would I respond to the persons claim?

Infertile men may marry; impotent may not. Therefore, procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage, but the marital act itself as the union of two becoming one is.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

Huuh…How about married straight couples that practise anal and oral sex? Because that’s what homosexuals do,isn’t it? Is it okay for straight couples to do that, just because they’re straight, and not for homosexuals? Because both “corrupt” normal nice sex, for the purpose of reproduction. [pfft, of course, other kinds too, but nevermind them XD]

No, actually. Catholic couples are supposed to be ‘open to life’. In addition, from a strictly medical perpsective, anal sex is a bad idea.

 

[Padster]

Infertile men may marry; impotent may not. Therefore, procreation is not the sole purpose of marriage, but the marital act itself as the union of two becoming one is.

What is this silliness? Impotent men can’t marry presumably because their condition is irreversible. But infertile men can marry because their condition could be reversed by fertility treatment. But wait a minute. Certain reproductive technologies used in fertility treatment are also out (the demonic m-word naturally figures highly in this). Three technologies that are acceptable involve intercourse, but I thought the whole point of intercourse was to create life? Anything outside this, including the vile m-word, is contrary to purpose.

“Any procedure which assists marital intercourse in reaching its procreative potential is moral.”

Is this a get out of jail free card or what? And what if it doesn’t help?

Best wishes,
Padster

 

[RedFox0456]

So, I should be economical with the truth and I’ll be in the clear? Thanks. I’ll remember that one with other ‘sins’.

I didn’t say that the couple wasn’t sinning by being intentionally deceitful, but there is a distinction on when the Church would be able to know of a sin here. If the Church doesn’t know, why would they have a problem?

In the words of Dougal Maguire, that is a long shot. I have been infertile now for 43 years. I suppose if God was going to act He would have done something when I was a teenager to give me a chance. Acting now is extracting urine.

A long shot, but not impossible. I mean, if only Scripture ever told us of a time when God force a couple to wait before he granted them a child, then we might have grounds for making such a claim…

But the Lord said to Abraham: “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Shall I really bear a child, as old as I am?’ Is anything too marvelous for the Lord to do?” (Gen 18:13-14)

Best wishes,
Padster

 

[buffalo]

Hello, today I was talking to a fellow about the morality of homosexual marriage, I argued that the purpose of sex is to form a loving bond between two married adults and to procreate, anything other than this would be contrary to the natural purpose.

Just like an axe is used for the purpose of chopping down tree, if he attempt to break a rock with it, it will be dulled and the purpose for which that axe was made will no longer exist.

The person in response said, “Wouldn’t that mean that infertile men shouldn’t be able to marry either?”

I read in the Catechism that infertile couples may still be lawfully married…How would I respond to the persons claim?

Being open to new life is very important.

 

[sw85]

Hello, today I was talking to a fellow about the morality of homosexual marriage, I argued that the purpose of sex is to form a loving bond between two married adults and to procreate, anything other than this would be contrary to the natural purpose.

Just like an axe is used for the purpose of chopping down tree, if he attempt to break a rock with it, it will be dulled and the purpose for which that axe was made will no longer exist.

The person in response said, “Wouldn’t that mean that infertile men shouldn’t be able to marry either?”

I read in the Catechism that infertile couples may still be lawfully married…How would I respond to the persons claim?

Marriage arises from man’s sexual nature, and infertile men are still able to act according to that nature, so yes, they may marry. On the other hand, impotent men (i…e, those paralyzed from the neck down) cannot act on that nature and hence may not marry if their impotence is permanent and incurable.

 

[rossum]

2 - While a man or woman may be infertile, there is always the possibility of fertility being restored by the grace of God. This is simply not possible in a homosexual union.

Why is it not possible? You are talking about God here. God is omnipotent. God can make an entire human being from just one rib. Homosexuals have ribs. An omnipotent God could, if He so wished, make two civilly married lesbians fertile with each other.

If God is omnipotent, then His power cannot be limited by mere biology.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Being open to new life is very important.

But it is not required. A post-menopausal women can marry, or can continue in an existing marriage.

rossum

 

[RedFox0456]

But it is not required. A post-menopausal women can marry, or can continue in an existing marriage.

rossum

How does that imply that one is not inherently open to life? I believe I already posted about Scripture and Sarah believing she was too old to have a child and then God asking if anything is too marvelous for Him.

Further, the second half of your comment is strange. “or can continue in an existing marriage.” Well, even aside from my first point here, supposing the couple has children and part of the responsibility of having a child is raising the child (and that doesn’t stop when your kid goes to college, no matter what we want to believe), then why in the world would one think that it would be good for the husband and wife to be separated?

 

[sw85]

Why is it not possible? You are talking about God here. God is omnipotent. God can make an entire human being from just one rib. Homosexuals have ribs. An omnipotent God could, if He so wished, make two civilly married lesbians fertile with each other.

If God is omnipotent, then His power cannot be limited by mere biology.

rossum

Because God has already made his will known regarding how procreation happens. And since God is both omnipotent and omniscient, it is impossible that he should have made a mistake in that regard that needs correcting; and since he is omnibenevolent, it is impossible that his actions in designing human nature this way should conduce to anything less than the perfection of the human person.

But it is not required. A post-menopausal women can marry, or can continue in an existing marriage.

rossum

“Openness to life” is an objective property of the act, not of the participants engaging in it or their intentions. It means to have sex in a manner consistent with the end of procreation, i.e., penetrative, intravaginal ejaculation in the context of marriage.

 

[buffalo]

Why is it not possible? You are talking about God here. God is omnipotent. God can make an entire human being from just one rib. Homosexuals have ribs. An omnipotent God could, if He so wished, make two civilly married lesbians fertile with each other.

If God is omnipotent, then His power cannot be limited by mere biology.

rossum

But He didn’t design it that way. It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Male and female He created them, complementary.

Catholics understand God to be almighty.

 

[buffalo]

But it is not required. A post-menopausal women can marry, or can continue in an existing marriage.

rossum

The norm is that most couples are fertile. Using that or age is not a good argument for trying to redefine marriage. Our biological design and purpose of our reproduction parts are designed for procreation, aka real marriage.