Homosexuality...but they love each other!

[SteveGC]

Neither the failure of many heterosexual marriages, NOR the existence of desire of homosexuals to raise families should be used to justify homosexual marriages.

It is indeed a tragedy that heterosexual marriages fail, and often severely disrupt the stability of children.

It is likewise tragic that children are orphaned for a number of reasons.

It is tempting to think that these realities should raise tolerance for the recognition and inclusion of homosexual marriages. It is tempting because it is based on the very sound principle/virtue of care and love for children. What could be wrong with that? Is it not better that they have stability, that they have something other than an orphanage?

We certainly are to care for children, especially orphans. We should be doing everything we can for these little ones. But the fact that, as a society and nation, we are largely NOT adequately addressing their need (both at home and abroad) does not suddenly justify homosexual marriage simply because supposedly so many homosexuals long to care for and raise children in a secure home.

The solution isn’t homosexual marriage at all, for that is gravely sinful, and the ends do not justify the means. Moreover, there is legitimate debate regarding how healthy such a homosexual household actually is for children adopted into them. The appropriate means to address this problem remains the same as it did before this homosexual marriage nonsense became so prevalent in society - lose our narcissism, instill proper understanding of the sacredness of traditional marriage in our children as they grow, open our homes and pocketbooks to orphans everywhere, and pray fervently.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dakota

**Real love does not need sex in order for it to be expressed or maintained. **

But without heterosexual sex there would be no one left to :thumbsup:really love.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

But without heterosexual sex there would be no one left to :thumbsup:really love.

True enough, Charlemagne. Nonetheless, real love can be expressed or maintained without sex. Sex is not a necessary part of real love, and love need not be sexualized in order to be real.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Nate13]

Sometimes people are orphaned you know. In a world without abortion there will be children that the mother/parents can not care for. Divorce is based on the existance of failure in heterosexual relationships.

Real love does not need sex in order for it to be expressed or maintained.

There are very few cases where someone loses all of their immediate and extended family. The bonds of blood used to extend out much farther than someone’s mother and father. Unfortunately a lot of that has been lost.

 

[Carolus_Martell]

but they love each other

Hey adulterers can love each other too.

All sin is loving, enticing, rewarding or feels good…that’s the rub.

If it was foul and abhorrent people would be much less sinful. imo homosexuality behind closed doors is between God and the offenders.

When it becomes publicly OK it perverts all of society. Just look at how the homosexual controlled media has polluted our TV and movies.

Civilization needs guardrails and that sinful behavior is outside the bounds of what is OK in public.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

lose our narcissism, instill proper understanding of the sacredness of traditional marriage in our children as they grow, open our homes and pocketbooks to orphans everywhere, and pray fervently.

Steve, I think this is as good a prescription as any, but I have one quibble, and it’s with the word “traditional.” I would prefer the word “sacramental” instead. If you look at marriage throughout the centuries, it’s clear that for most of human history, marriage was a socio-economic institution that was largely concerned with making economic and political allies, ensuring a legacy, confirming inheritance, managing property. A marriage had little or nothing to do with people who loved each other, and more to do with families who could profit (politically, socially, economically) through being united in a marriage. It’s only in the last couple hundred years or so that couples have insisted on loving each other before they get married, which subtly shifted the emphasis of marriage from the families and the societies to which they belonged to the two people getting married. While the idea that a marriage produces and fosters children to be the good citizens of tomorrow indicates that it continues to have an enduring social value, the importance of such a value is vitiated by divorce, contraception, family planning, and the fact that children rarely ever continue their parents’ livelihoods/trades/legacies–these days, the legacies involved are purely biological/genetic. Slowly, marriage has become little more than a seal of approval on a loving relationship. Having lost much of its social dimension, and thus much of it’s social standing, couples who, in previous generations and for whatever reason, would never have thought to get married now desire to get married. Why? It means their relationship is legit. Others who in previous generations may have desired marriage now eschew it. Why? Because they see the institution as meaningless. The personal has truly triumphed over the social in this arena.

Now, if we believe that couples who get married should love each other before they get married (which is the individualist innovation which started the ball rolling on all the other changes to marriage the have occurred over the last hundred years or so), but we also believe that marriage is not just about the couple, I would suggest that the emphasis of our discourse should be on sacramental marriage as opposed to “traditional” marriage. Otherwise, we risk advocating for little more than a well-meaning fantasy.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[seagal]

Doesn’t that tie the purpose of homosexual marriage to there being children to adopt or in other words to the existence of heterosexual marriages?If there were no children to adopt wouldn’t that then make homosexual marriage meaningless by your reasoning?

Not at all. Gay people are capable of reproducing…albeit not with each other.

I’m not taking a stance either for or against homosexual marriage. On one hand, I agree that homosexuality is unnatural (for lack of a better term). On the other hand, I’m not convinced that non-Catholics should be expected to follow Catholic beliefs.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Dakota

**Real love does not need sex in order for it to be expressed or maintained. **

But without heterosexual sex there would be no one left to :thumbsup:really love.

True, if we didn’t have people who were weak and could not commit to celibacy then humanity would die (marriage is good, but celibacy is simply better).

Grace & Peace!

True enough, Charlemagne. Nonetheless, real love can be expressed or maintained without sex. Sex is not a necessary part of real love, and love need not be sexualized in order to be real.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

If only Catholics could really get this, if they did understand then it could be a potent tool for conversing with and converting LGBT people

There are very few cases where someone loses all of their immediate and extended family. The bonds of blood used to extend out much farther than someone’s mother and father. Unfortunately a lot of that has been lost.

True, kinship also used to extend beyond blood too (the whole point of godparents is to raise the child if the parents die).

Not at all. Gay people are capable of reproducing…albeit not with each other.

I’m not taking a stance either for or against homosexual marriage. On one hand, I agree that homosexuality is unnatural (for lack of a better term). On the other hand, I’m not convinced that non-Catholics should be expected to follow Catholic beliefs.

Homosexuality is not unnatural, homosexual acts happen plenty often in nature and some animals are exclusively same sex attracted. Homosexual acts however are in violation of natural law. It is important that we stop same sex marriage as it is further damage to the institution.

 

[seagal]

Homosexuality is not unnatural, homosexual acts happen plenty often in nature and some animals are exclusively same sex attracted. Homosexual acts however are in violation of natural law. It is important that we stop same sex marriage as it is further damage to the institution.

What’s the difference between “unnatural” and “in violation of natural law”?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

What’s the difference between “unnatural” and “in violation of natural law”?

Well, the pop defition has it as stuff that doesn’t happen in nature and natural law is like mathematical laws for nature. Natural law is how people are supposed to live as set forth by right reason

 

[SteveGC]

Grace & Peace!

Steve, I think this is as good a prescription as any, but I have one quibble, and it’s with the word “traditional.” I would prefer the word “sacramental” instead. If you look at marriage throughout the centuries, it’s clear that for most of human history, marriage was a socio-economic institution that was largely concerned with making economic and political allies, ensuring a legacy, confirming inheritance, managing property. A marriage had little or nothing to do with people who loved each other, and more to do with families who could profit (politically, socially, economically) through being united in a marriage. It’s only in the last couple hundred years or so that couples have insisted on loving each other before they get married, which subtly shifted the emphasis of marriage from the families and the societies to which they belonged to the two people getting married. While the idea that a marriage produces and fosters children to be the good citizens of tomorrow indicates that it continues to have an enduring social value, the importance of such a value is vitiated by divorce, contraception, family planning, and the fact that children rarely ever continue their parents’ livelihoods/trades/legacies–these days, the legacies involved are purely biological/genetic. Slowly, marriage has become little more than a seal of approval on a loving relationship. Having lost much of its social dimension, and thus much of it’s social standing, couples who, in previous generations and for whatever reason, would never have thought to get married now desire to get married. Why? It means their relationship is legit. Others who in previous generations may have desired marriage now eschew it. Why? Because they see the institution as meaningless. The personal has truly triumphed over the social in this arena.

Now, if we believe that couples who get married should love each other before they get married (which is the individualist innovation which started the ball rolling on all the other changes to marriage the have occurred over the last hundred years or so), but we also believe that marriage is not just about the couple, I would suggest that the emphasis of our discourse should be on sacramental marriage as opposed to “traditional” marriage. Otherwise, we risk advocating for little more than a well-meaning fantasy.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

My use of the term traditional was indeed meant to signify sacramental. Not traditional in the socio-economic way. Traditional in the divine way. I thought about replacing the term to be clear, but didn’t. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[SteveGC]

Not at all. Gay people are capable of reproducing…albeit not with each other.

I’m not taking a stance either for or against homosexual marriage. On one hand, I agree that homosexuality is unnatural (for lack of a better term). On the other hand, I’m not convinced that non-Catholics should be expected to follow Catholic beliefs.

in terms of politics and law, it’s not that non-Catholics are “expected to follow Catholic beliefs”. We certainly wish all people would follow Catholic beliefs, but forcing it through politics and the law is no way of going about it. As you are no doubt already aware, conversion is a matter for the Spirit, not man’s law. And Catholics don’t take this approach to evangelization.

In politics and law, the homosexual marriage issue, much like the abortion issue, and other issues significant to morality, Catholics simply are exercising the same rights as everyone else in the public square. We are simply making our argument known, trying to rally understanding and support for our arguments, and casting our votes on election day. Just the same as the non-Catholic Christian, the Jew, the Buddist, the New-Ager, the Muslim, the agnostic, the atheist, and on and on.

Catholics are often accused of “forcing religion on society”. It’s an absurd claim. One that can be just as easily turned around on the accuser, by claiming that they are “forcing their beliefs on society”. No one forces their beliefs in this country. No one. Not Catholics. Not anyone. They simply follow their moral consciences. And vote accordingly. If Catholics win the argument and gain the majority vote, will homosexuals get to marry? No. But they’re not forced to believe anything as a result. They didn’t get to marry for hundreds of years, and they’ve never claimed it was because anyone was “forcing their beliefs on them”. They do now, because the Catholic Church and others try to defend the institution.

 

[Nate13]

What’s the difference between “unnatural” and “in violation of natural law”?

Natural law is a standard of how things were designed to work, that we can come to know through human reason. Natural law is human reason.

See the Catechism here on natural moral law:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm

 

[edwest2]

Not at all. Gay people are capable of reproducing…albeit not with each other.

I’m not taking a stance either for or against homosexual marriage. On one hand, I agree that homosexuality is unnatural (for lack of a better term). On the other hand, I’m not convinced that non-Catholics should be expected to follow Catholic beliefs.

Church teaching is not based on a “because we said so” principle. Here is the relevant document:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Grace & Peace!

Steve, I think this is as good a prescription as any, but I have one quibble, and it’s with the word “traditional.” I would prefer the word “sacramental” instead. If you look at marriage throughout the centuries, it’s clear that for most of human history, marriage was a socio-economic institution that was largely concerned with making economic and political allies, ensuring a legacy, confirming inheritance, managing property. A marriage had little or nothing to do with people who loved each other, and more to do with families who could profit (politically, socially, economically) through being united in a marriage. It’s only in the last couple hundred years or so that couples have insisted on loving each other before they get married, which subtly shifted the emphasis of marriage from the families and the societies to which they belonged to the two people getting married. While the idea that a marriage produces and fosters children to be the good citizens of tomorrow indicates that it continues to have an enduring social value, the importance of such a value is vitiated by divorce, contraception, family planning, and the fact that children rarely ever continue their parents’ livelihoods/trades/legacies–these days, the legacies involved are purely biological/genetic. Slowly, marriage has become little more than a seal of approval on a loving relationship. Having lost much of its social dimension, and thus much of it’s social standing, couples who, in previous generations and for whatever reason, would never have thought to get married now desire to get married. Why? It means their relationship is legit. Others who in previous generations may have desired marriage now eschew it. Why? Because they see the institution as meaningless. The personal has truly triumphed over the social in this arena.

Now, if we believe that couples who get married should love each other before they get married (which is the individualist innovation which started the ball rolling on all the other changes to marriage the have occurred over the last hundred years or so), but we also believe that marriage is not just about the couple, I would suggest that the emphasis of our discourse should be on sacramental marriage as opposed to “traditional” marriage. Otherwise, we risk advocating for little more than a well-meaning fantasy.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

---

---

There is no well-meaning fantasy. This is how I was taught was the order of things in a heterosexual relationship.

It begins with an attraction.
It may be followed by trust and some bonding shared by similar interests.
If trust is established, it is followed by a friendship.
Once friendship is established and trust, it can continue to dating.
While dating, the young couple might express their desire to marry each other.
If this happens, it leads to a formal courtship. Parents and friends on both sides meet each other. Inter-familial communication is developed.
If both decide to follow through, it can lead to an engagement period where not just romantic but practical matters need to be addressed:
Where will we live?
Can we afford to pay our bills?
How about children? How many?

One of my closest friends sat down with the father of his wife to be and said he intended to marry her. Now, her dad, who had been his age once, asked the practical questions, like: “So, how are you going to take care of my daughter?” And others.

Saying “I love you” means you are ready and willing to make a sacrificial promise to the other. For life. But… up to and including the wedding day, the Father tells his daughter: “If you have any doubts then don’t.”

This is relevant because the media is selling the idea that there is a one to one relationship between homosexual couples and heterosexual married couples. There is evidence this is not the case for many successful gay marriages:

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

Peace,
Ed

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[John21652]

Grace & Peace!

True enough, Charlemagne. Nonetheless, real love can be expressed or maintained without sex. Sex is not a necessary part of real love, and love need not be sexualized in order to be real.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

As other posters have been writing of when they mention sibling relationships and child-parent relationships.

So what’s your point?

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

As other posters have been writing of when they mention sibling relationships and child-parent relationships.

So what’s your point?

There’s more to nonsexual love than familial love. Eros can be devoid of venus, it’s not a necessary component

 

[John21652]

There’s more to nonsexual love than familial love. Eros can be devoid of venus, it’s not a necessary component

So where does Venus supposedly fit into all this?

Eros is supposedly about erotic love.

Venus is supposed to represent evrything from beauty through to fertility and everything in between, sex included. What are you going to do, nueter her?

The subject is supposed to be homosexuality. Homosexuality is supposed to be a sexualised attraction to someone of the same sex and hence erotic ‘love’. Are we now going to be fed another line by the gay protagonists that most homosexuals are now chaste and don’t go around committing sodomy?

Excuse me while I go consult with the fairies at the bottom of my garden…

 

[John21652]

There’s more to nonsexual love than familial love. Eros can be devoid of venus, it’s not a necessary component

So where does Venus supposedly fit into all this?

Eros is supposedly about erotic love. from it springs erotic.

Venus is supposed to represent evrything from beauty through to fertility and everything in between, sex included. What are you going to do, neuter her?

The subject is supposed to be homosexuality. Homosexuality is supposed to be a sexualised attraction to someone of the same sex and hence erotic ‘love’. Are we now going to be fed another line by the gay protagonists that most homosexuals are now chaste and don’t go around committing sodomy?

Excuse me while I go consult with the fairies at the bottom of my garden…

 

[PumpkinSeed]

The gays dont seem to be doing any harm. Why should they not have the right to marry? Two consenting adults doing something that doesn’t hurt you. Why would you be against them trying to be happy and live their own life?