Homosexuality and Infertility

  • Thread starter Thread starter NFrancis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

NFrancis

Guest
Basically, i am explaining this to my brother right now and i need help. We are talking about why homosexuality is wrong and why it takes away authority from God. I said that the two purposes of sex are procreation and unity, but then he brought up that some people are infertile. Why can they have sex but homosexual people can’t have homosexual sex because the both are not reproductive?
 
Basically, i am explaining this to my brother right now and i need help. We are talking about why homosexuality is wrong and why it takes away authority from God. I said that the two purposes of sex are procreation and unity, but then he brought up that some people are infertile. Why can they have sex but homosexual people can’t have homosexual sex because the both are not reproductive?
Homosexual sex is disordered because it is a complete misuse of something that is primarily intended for the creation of new life. Couples that engage in sexual relations even though they may be infertile, still order their actions towards the creation of new life.

Of course sex does not have to result in a new life (infertility, sterility due to surgery for health reasons, ect), but it cannot be used in a way that could never result in the creation of a new life under normal circumstances. Not only that, but homosexual sex includes other sins as well. Fornication, sodomy, and masturbation. Properly ordered sexual relations between a married couple that happens to be sterile includes non of these sins.
 
Basically, i am explaining this to my brother right now and i need help. We are talking about why homosexuality is wrong and why it takes away authority from God. I said that the two purposes of sex are procreation and unity, but then he brought up that some people are infertile. Why can they have sex but homosexual people can’t have homosexual sex because the both are not reproductive?
For one thing, you never know that infertility is absolute - remember Abraham and Sarah. Miracles do happen.
 
What about childless heterosexual couples? How does an infertile heterosexual marriage differ from a same-sex marriage?

One big difference is that the heterosexual couple enjoys sexual complementarity, and the fullness that brings into their relationship, even if they cannot have children. Though the situation of an infertile couple is very different, there is a disturbing parallel to same-sex marriage in the situation of couples who simply choose not to have children.

Such couples are still able to have sex, the fullest physical expression of love between husband and wife. But they are doing something that profoundly disturbs the nature of the sexual act. Sexuality has two.aspects: the procreative (bringing forth children) and the unitive (strengthening the union of the couple). Artificially separating the unitive from the procreative brings discord to a marriage, distorts the relationship between husband and wife, and ends up harming their unity as spouses.

Pope John Paul II explains this with what he calls the “language of the body.” He observes that in the sexual act, man and woman implicitly give themselves totally to one another. That is what their bodies are saying, both symbolically and literally. Sexual expression, by its very nature, implies total gift of self to the other. The language of the body says, "I give myself to you completely, without reservation or condition."30 But sometimes that statement is a lie. Sometimes one or both do not give themselves completely to the other but instead use the other selfishly, as a pleasure object. Treating the other as an object is divisive rather than unitive.

There are several ways men and women can reduce one another to the status of object. Sex between couples who are not married and therefore do not bring a total commitment to their union are, in the Holy Father’s terminology, telling a lie with their bodies, because their bodies speak a language of total, unconditional, and permanent self-giving when in fact they are doing nothing of the sort.31 In that sense, their sexual expression becomes a lie, because it misrepresents their relationship. Regardless of their feelings for each other, their sexual expression promises more than it objectively delivers.

Fornication and adultery are not the only ways couples can lie with their bodies. Married couples who are committed to exclusive, permanent, and unconditional love may also tell a lie with their bodies when they separate the procreative aspect of sex from the unitive through contraception. Here, the failure to give oneself fully is more subtle but nonetheless real. Deliberately frustrating the procreative.aspect of a sexual act creates a condition that makes self-giving only partial and reduces the spouse, in some degree, to a pleasure object used for selfish purposes.

This does not mean that sex can be truly self-giving only during fertile parts of a woman’s cycle. The Church has never taught that couples must have as many children as possible. Rather, it means that interference with fertility both arises out of spousal selfishness and increases it. The Church approves natural family planning, in which couples abstain during fertile periods when they prayerfully have determined that there is a need to avoid pregnancy. In these cases the spouses are not separating the unitive and procreative.aspects of a sexual act; they are simply refraining from performing the act. Similarly, sex after menopause or when suffering from other forms of infertility do not divide the unitive from the procreative. The couple’s act is still ordered toward procreation; it is simply that procreation will not occur.32

catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp
 
Basically, i am explaining this to my brother right now and i need help. We are talking about why homosexuality is wrong and why it takes away authority from God. I said that the two purposes of sex are procreation and unity, but then he brought up that some people are infertile. Why can they have sex but homosexual people can’t have homosexual sex because the both are not reproductive?
If you are looking to read a fairly accessible book on the subject Thomas Schmidt’s “Straight and Narrow: compassion and clarity in the homosexual debate” is useful.

One thing he mentions is that reproduction is only part of the issue. Plato, for instance, opposed homosexuality solely on this ground, but you can add another important issue, “complementarity.” The Genesis story implies that man is somehow incomplete alone, (“it is not good for man to be alone”), Eve was made like him (“bone from my bone”) but also different. Between men and women physical complementarity is obviously present, their bodies are designed for sex with each other in a way that men and men are not, but the complementarity between the two goes beyond in the physical. In homosexual relationships the two do not find partners, they (as schmidt says) find mirrors.

Another difference that goes with the issue of physical complementarity goes is the point that because men’s bodies are not designed for sex with each other, sex between men can actually result in severe physical problems, from physical trauma to disease. This would be another difference between a homosexual couple and an infertile heterosexual couple.

This helps because complementarity is present between an infertile heterosexual couple and it is not between a homosexual couple. Additionally, The former still takes place within the framework of heterosexual monogamy, which is the only biblically approved framework for the expression of sexuality. This is only a small part of Schmidt’s book, one can also just pick and choose certain chapter to read if curious.
 
For one thing, you never know that infertility is absolute - remember Abraham and Sarah. Miracles do happen.
ahahaha. Yeah, I don’t really think that story actually happened.
 
There are many wonderful answers to this question already given, but I heard one a few years ago that gave me a laugh, as well as a new point of view on the matter:

“A woman with no uterus having a baby would be a miracle, but a man having a baby would be much more of a miracle.”
 
Infertility is not a choice.
In fairness, neither is homosexuality. As I understand it, the Church concedes that it’s not something anyone chooses.

And really, who would choose it. You get discriminated against. You become a mutant pariah.
 
Based on natural law (not religious) reasoning, I think we can ask the question: What went wrong?

When a heterosexual couple fail to produce a baby it is usually an emotional trauma after multiple trips to the doctor, treatments, tests and likely prayer. They get a show of support from family and close friends. We can recognize that something went wrong but it was not the fault of the couple. They were open to life but it did not work out.

When a homosexual couple fail to produce a baby. We can’t say that anything went wrong. Everything was working. The couple are naturally unable to produce a baby.
 
Based on natural law (not religious) reasoning, I think we can ask the question: What went wrong?

When a heterosexual couple fail to produce a baby it is usually an emotional trauma after multiple trips to the doctor, treatments, tests and likely prayer. They get a show of support from family and close friends. We can recognize that something went wrong but it was not the fault of the couple. They were open to life but it did not work out.
What about the case of marital relations between a husband and wife in their 60’s? Would it be correct to say that aging is something that “went wrong”? Thus, because the body is not supposed to age they’re “open to life” but it’s just not going to work out that they’ll conceive?
 
For one thing, you never know that infertility is absolute - remember Abraham and Sarah. Miracles do happen.
Happened to a cousin of mine. She was told there was no hope of ever falling pregnant, so she and her husband went on to adopt two beautiful girls. Those girls were nearly in their teens when my cousin fell pregnant!! So, never say never!

However, when it comes to Homosexuality, I have to say ‘never’, because homosexuality will never ever produce the same miracle. As others have written, it is disordered. Not to mention repugnant to most people. Ethically, it is against the Natural Law, which is the foundation of Church morality and the foundation of the greater ethical behaviour of the human race, except where it has been subverted by positivist and relativistic law.
 
However, when it comes to Homosexuality, I have to say ‘never’, because homosexuality will never ever produce the same miracle. As others have written, it is disordered.
How do I explain why it is disordered?

To say “it is disordered because it is not natural” is a tautology.
To say “it is disordered because it cannot procreate” leaves us open to questions regarding heterosexual couples who also cannot procreate.
 
How do I explain why it is disordered?

To say “it is disordered because it is not natural” is a tautology.
To say “it is disordered because it cannot procreate” leaves us open to questions regarding heterosexual couples who also cannot procreate.
To say homosexuality is disordered is only a part of the Natural Law reasoning as to why it is wrong. Disordered and unnatural are both adjectives and they both can mean different things. A dictionary will show this. Disorder does not necessarily infer that something is unnatural and unnatural does not necessarily infer disordedness. Something can be unnatural simply because it is something normal but out of place. Homosexuality is both disordered and unnatural. To explain whyb homosexuality is disordered and therefore morally wrong, we need to switch to the use of the noun, disordedness and explain how ‘wrongness’ can emanate from it. Similarly with unnatural. We use the noun Unnaturalness and discuss it as a concept and discover (discern) why it can lead to ‘wrongness’.

As to your query about heterosexuals and homosexuals both being unable to procreate, well I gave you an example of where a heterosexual couple were supposedly unable to procreate and they eventually did. In general terms, heterosexual couples are able to procreate; there is always the possibility and in the process they are behaving normally, in a natural fashion as befits the normative behaviour of their species. Again, use the nouns Unnaturalness and Disorderdnessto arrive at the ‘wrongness’ of an act. Homosexuals are not behaving according to the accepted and established norms of the human race. This is where the concept of universality is pertinent.

As one Professor Edwin Patterson, once a famous Law Professor at Columbia University, wrote in Jurisprudence: Men and Ideas of the Law (1953), that Natural Law moral principles are -
Principles of human conduct that are discoverable by “reason” from the basic inclinations of human nature, and that are absolute, immutable and of universal validity for all times and places.
 
To say homosexuality is disordered is only a part of the Natural Law reasoning as to why it is wrong. Disordered and unnatural are both adjectives and they both can mean different things. A dictionary will show this. Disorder does not necessarily infer that something is unnatural and unnatural does not necessarily infer disordedness. Something can be unnatural simply because it is something normal but out of place. Homosexuality is both disordered and unnatural. To explain whyb homosexuality is disordered and therefore morally wrong, we need to switch to the use of the noun, disordedness and explain how ‘wrongness’ can emanate from it. Similarly with unnatural. We use the noun Unnaturalness and discuss it as a concept and discover (discern) why it can lead to ‘wrongness’.
Ah. Very good. Thank you. 👍
As to your query about heterosexuals and homosexuals both being unable to procreate, well I gave you an example of where a heterosexual couple were supposedly unable to procreate and they eventually did.
I explained the above to my SIL who responded, “A woman who’s had a hysterectomy is absolutely unable to procreate. The degree of her inability to procreate is equal to that of any homosexual couple.”

How does a Catholic respond to this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top