Yes, that’s a good thing when it is possible.Place them with an adoptive mother and father just like Catholic Charities Adoptive Services used to be able to do.
It is, however, a major chink in its armor. Nor is it the only reason for its wrongness.Yes, I did.
And what it proves it precisely what you concluded: The interest of the state in marriage is more than just for the sake of the procreation of new citizens, as another poster averred.
So the procreation argument cannot be used to ban same-sex marriages.
This addressed your claim. Now Jesus sanctified marriage, brought it up to a sacrament, receiving extra graces. That in itself shows His plan and purpose for marriage.Interesting article:.
"Judaism changed all this. It rendered the “gender of the object” very “morally problematic”; it declared that no one is “interchangeable” sexually. And as a result, it ensured that sex would in fact be “fundamentally interaction” and not simply “a doing of something to someone”.
So sex isn’t just sex; it’s an important part of interpersonal relationships, even when “sex” is not experienced, but rather sexuality. the abandonment of sex as exercise of power over someone was the what Judaism was changing–YES!
Far from being immoral, however, the Torah’s prohibition of homosexuality was a major part of its liberation (1) of the human being from the bonds of unrestrained sexuality and (2) of women from being peripheral to men’s lives.
Yes! Monotheism abandoned the model of those lusty gods who were forever impregnating human women.
The Torah uses its strongest term of censure — “abomination” — to describe homosexuality.
Here the writer betrays a bias. What he doesn’t tell you is that the same term is used 79 times in the Bible, including the following:
Lev 7:18, And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.
Lev 11:10, And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
Lev 11:13, And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
“Judaism cannot make peace with homosexuality because homosexuality denies many of Judaism’s most fundamental principles. It denies life, it denies God’s expressed desire that men and women cohabit, and it denies the root structure that Judaism wishes for all mankind, the family.”
These conclusions are also biased. Homosexual marriage doesn’t deny life, though admittedly, it does preclude procreation. The two are not identical. Is not life more than the begetting of children?
Homosexual marriage in no way interferes with men and women cohabiting if that is their choice.
Homosexual marriage seeks to form families where families did not previously exist. These families might look different from other families, but in purpose and function they are identical.
An earthly foster father.I do not exercise authority over that definition of what constitutes a marriage. The word “marriage” seems to have a wider application than would at first appear.
How many fathers did he have?
Yes, marriage being unitive and procreative is its best interest for a well functioning society.Yes, I did.
And what it proves it precisely what you concluded: The interest of the state in marriage is more than just for the sake of the procreation of new citizens, as another poster averred.
So the procreation argument cannot be used to ban same-sex marriages.
The Church has reversed the order of the stated ends of marriage in recent years. Procreation used to be put first. And the order is not accidental. The Church permits marriage to couples that are incapable of procreation because of the overriding benefits that are derived by the spouses.Are you confusing chastity with abstinence?
Yes - real marriage is unitive and procreative by design. Since the procreative act is a unitive one, the homosexual act cannot achieve its purpose. Therefore, so called same sex marriage can never fulfill the designs and purpose of real marriage. Never. Even if man through faulty human reasoning redefines it. But, this wouldn’t be the first time man thought He knew better than God.
The Church does indeed command chastity. As for society, 100 million cases of STD’s speaks volumes. 16 Billion a year to treat STD’s.
2348 All the baptized are called to chastity. The Christian has "put on Christ,"135 the model for all chastity. All Christ’s faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life. At the moment of his Baptism, the Christian is pledged to lead his affective life in chastity.
**2349 **“People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single.” Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence: There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.
We should work on this then. Older children bring some additional problems with them due to their disordered life. Placing them in a more disordered place does not help. It may give them food, clothing and shelter, but not the things that they really need.Yes, that’s a good thing when it is possible.
What you will discover is that a great many of the children placed with same-sex couples are 1. older children not sought by heterosexual couples, 2. handicapped children (again, not what Ozzie and Harriet want) or 3. Minority or mixed-race children (also not in great demand by typical heterosexual couples.
I like this passage.** for conjugal love naturally tends to be fruitful**. A child does not come from outside as something added on to the mutual love of the spouses, but springs from the very heart of that mutual giving, as its fruit and fulfillment. So the Church, which is “on the side of life,” teaches that “it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.” "This particular doctrine, expounded on numerous occasions by the Magisterium, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."
Adding your descriptions do not add amything.So murder is what? Evil? You say no. Bad? Disordered? Good?
Jesus was chaste and celibate.The Church has reversed the order of the stated ends of marriage in recent years. Procreation used to be put first. And the order is not accidental. The Church permits marriage to couples that are incapable of procreation because of the overriding benefits that are derived by the spouses.
The Church has no authority to “command” chastity, but may and does commend chastity as you have indicated “suited to their state of life,” such as “Married people are called to live conjugal chastity.” Not celibacy. Chastity in the married state includes intercourse as well as other physical shows of affection.
Same sex couples desire to live in the state of life that is called marriage. They want to follow the teaching of the church on this. By denying them access to marriage, the Church is demanding that they be celibate, which the church has perennially named as a special gift from God.
Would you say that Jesus was chaste, or was he celibate?
How do you classify murder?Adding your descriptions do not add amything.
Did you read the last sentence? Now you are redefining procreation? You cannot ignore the literal meaning.I like this passage.
Another word for fruitful is generative, which also hints at the creative spark of God.
Celibate priests and religious are certainly generative. Through their love they bring forth all manner of good into the world.
Children are another expression of generativity that springs from the mutual love of husband and wife.
Children can also be the result of rape and incest.
I believe that the generativity of same sex couples has been demonstrated time and again. Like religious they bring forth good into the world, and it is the result of the love they share with each other.
A. Well, that’s a problem. You see sin differently than me and the Church. I think the Church has been pretty clear that acting on same-sex attraction is sinful.A. I would consider it no more sinful than sex for a heterosexual married couple.
B. The track record is spotty. Need some examples?
C. And lately, some portions of the Church are not listening to other portions of the Church
D. Are they same-sex married people?
Didn’t Jesus say by their fruits you will know them? If we see generosity and kindness, piety and love, and if it is clear that these traits are the result of the relationship, how can we say that this couple does not have God as the center of their life? Just for a moment, let your imagination expand what you visualize as the kingdom of God. Maybe that bigger vision is God’s vision.
Even Jesus had to be jolted into understanding that the expanse of his mission was bigger than he thought it was. Perhaps this is God’s time to show us a bigger Kingdom, and in so doing, help us to focus more on the things of heaven than we previously did. Jesus said sex really doesn’t matter in heaven.
I said nothing about “should.” I merely described what happens.buffalo
**
Your claim is that the castoffs and marginalized should go to homosexual? Really??? Really??**
A true priest does not scandalize the Church by teaching that same-sex marriage should be a sacrament.
It is no wonder that, with priests like this, many outside the Church believe the Church is irredeemably corrupt.
Yes the “married state” includes intercourse… but not for affection…for procreation.The Church has reversed the order of the stated ends of marriage in recent years. Procreation used to be put first. And the order is not accidental. The Church permits marriage to couples that are incapable of procreation because of the overriding benefits that are derived by the spouses.
The Church has no authority to “command” chastity, but may and does commend chastity as you have indicated “suited to their state of life,” such as “Married people are called to live conjugal chastity.” Not celibacy. Chastity in the married state includes intercourse as well as other physical shows of affection.
Same sex couples desire to live in the state of life that is called marriage. They want to follow the teaching of the church on this. By denying them access to marriage, the Church is demanding that they be celibate, which the church has perennially named as a special gift from God.
Would you say that Jesus was chaste, or was he celibate?
Nobody wants to redefine marriage. In fact, I find that conservatives don’t want to define marriage at all, except as far as it includes procreation, which is a red herring.Gay Tea Party Founder: If We Redefine Marriage, ‘We’re Going to Redefine Children’
(CNSNews.com) – Three opponents of same-sex “marriage” spoke at the conservative Heritage Foundation on Monday, including the gay co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots who argued that children are entitled to a biological mother and a father, and that if the government seeks to redefine marriage to include homosexual couples, it will necessarily also be redefining children.
“The redefining of marriage, quite frankly I think it’s nuts,” said Doug Mainwaring, co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots and a homosexual. “Being gay, I’ve had a long time to consider this, look at it.”
“I used to be pro-same-sex marriage but the more I thought about it, it occurred to me, this just isn’t right,” he said. “Marriage is the most successful institution that civilization has produced over the last few millennia, and we shouldn’t mess with it. If we attempt to redefine marriage, we’re going to redefine children in the same way. In fact, I prefer to use the term ‘undefine’.”
more…
I hesitate to ask personal questions, but are you married?Yes the “married state” includes intercourse… but not for affection…for procreation.
The problem with your argument is that it is an untruth, it is an heretical and dissenting “opinion.” And that is why you will find difficulty in proving yourself. Entombed in the words you use to defend sin is pride, the ancient pride of “knowing” everything. That is what got us in trouble in the first place.
I submit myself to Holy Mother Church, the same Church Jesus established. I do not claim to know any better. I listen faithfully to the shepherds and I do not second guess them. That is my duty as a professed member, a sacramental member of the Catholic Church.
Jesus calls us to be sheep not goats.
Hi Buffalo,Jesus was chaste and celibate.
The Church has the authority of Jesus. She preserves the Deposit of Faith.
You do understand the difference between procreative sex and going in the out door? You are not making the claim they are the same? C’mon now…