Homosexuality...but they love each other!

[John21652]

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?

Not doing any harm?

Well, that’s debatable.

There’s a whole lot of self harm in what they do and if it wasn’t for moden medicine there wouldn’t be too many of them around anyway. The high rates of promiscuity amongst them puts the entire human race at risk.

There is also the ‘harm’ that will be done to the idea of what marriage really is.

Then there’s the harm they will do to the next generation if they are allowed to adopt children. That’s because they can’t breed any of their own, you see.

The thing is, they originally asked to be treated like two consenting adults that just wanted to do their own thing. Now they are demanding more and more, marriage and adoption included. They seek to have what is abnormal considered as normal. They will also do as they have done in the U.K. which is to use the legislation that supports them as weapons against the morality of the society that was generous enough to allow them to be treated as consenting adults in the first place. Before too long, as in the U.K. they will be demanding the right to Church ‘marriages’ and wo behold anyone who refuses.

However, you already know all this, which is why your first post on CAF is this one quoted here and why you have no religion next to our user name. So what’s your next move?

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

So where does Venus supposedly fit into all this?

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

Erotic does indeed spring from Eros, but Eros is not simply erotic in the vulgar way in which we understand it today. Our love for God is erotic love, as St. John of the Cross and others make quite clear in their works. It is the love of the lower for the higher–such a love is clearly explicated in Socrates speech at the end of the Symposium in which he discusses the ladder of love.

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?

It’s clear you don’t believe in the possibility of platonic love, examples of which would be Dante and Beatrice, Layla and Majnun, Socrates and Alcibiades, Michelangelo and Cavalieri even (perhaps unnecessarily controversially) David and Jonathan. The supreme example of such a love, however, is the love of Our Lady and St. Joseph. That such an intense and chaste love may in fact be rare in these over-sexed days is no indication that it is either impossible or undesirable.

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?

No one is trying to convince you that homosexuals are mostly or generally un-chaste. The assertion is that real love between real lovers (and not just friends, however noble one’s definition of friendship) does not require sex in order to be real. The suggestion is that it is possible for chaste homosexuals to participate in such a love–the volume of such homosexuals who do participate in it may be small, but it remains a possibility.

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

Ha.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

NOTA BENE! This sentence…

No one is trying to convince you that homosexuals are mostly or generally un-chaste.

…should read: “No one is trying to convince you that homosexuals are mostly chaste or generally un-chaste.”

Sorry for the missing word!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[michelleds]

What I continue to fail to understand is this insistence on a special category. if you are attracted to your own sex, but you are chaste in accordance with Church teachings, then you will pray and learn to integrate your sexuality in a healthy and holy way into your life. You may indeed have one very close friend with whom you share a ***filial ***love, however, you don’t need a special category for that love.

this desperate grasping after something else, something more, is just sad. seek God, seek holiness. Stop trying to force square pegs into round holes.

This might be a good time to suggest that readers study up on detachment.

 

[Hypnotoad]

“But they love each other!”

This has become the most common retort from the pro-homosexual /homosexual marriage agenda. We as Catholics who have young children, grandchildren and nieces/nephews growing up today have heard the question: “why can’t they get married, they love each other. Everyone who loves each other should get married!”

How do we answer this simply and succinctly? I know it is an emotional response and we can’t base this on emotion but how can we answer this in a world that is pushing this agenda faster than anything in the past?

God bless you all.

I think the best way to approach the “they love each other” arguments it to discuss exactly what love is: God. Then it would also be good to advise the people that you’re not just opposed to gay marriage but every immoral marriage whether it be between homosexuals or heterosexuals.

No one can truly accuse the Catholic position of being bigoted or racist since the rules against impure and immoral acts apply to everyone regardless of thier race, gender, geographic location, and etc.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

What I continue to fail to understand is this insistence on a special category.

Hi Michelle. No one’s insisting on a special category. What a couple people, myself included, are saying is that a chaste loving relationship–which has classically been termed a “platonic relationship”–is possible for human beings, and that includes human beings who are same-sex attracted. What some other folks seem to be arguing is either a) such relationships are impossible because sex must be or will be involved if it’s to be a proper loving relationship and not just a good friendship; or b) such relationships are impossible for same-sex attracted people because they’re special–i.e., unlike most human beings, same sex-attracted people would not be able to deal with or maintain such relationships and would spoil them.

if you are attracted to your own sex, but you are chaste in accordance with Church teachings, then you will pray and learn to integrate your sexuality in a healthy and holy way into your life.

Of course!

You may indeed have one very close friend with whom you share a ***filial ***love, however, you don’t need a special category for that love.

I’m not sure if you’re giving permission here, or if you’re describing the only sort of relationship possibility that you believe same-sex attracted folks can have. If the former…um…thanks? If the latter, I think your insistence that chaste same-sex attracted folks cannot be in a loving platonic relationship (unlike the rest of humanity) is the assertion of special-ness here.

this desperate grasping after something else, something more, is just sad.

No one’s desperately grasping after anything. Such relationships are a human possibility or they aren’t. Simple.

Your denial that such relationships are impossible for same-sex attracted people is curious. Does it have a rational basis or is it purely emotional (which your over-emphasis of the word “filial” seems to suggest)?

seek God, seek holiness. Stop trying to force square pegs into round holes.

Indeed.

This might be a good time to suggest that readers study up on detachment.

Good advice, Michelle! In a wonderful divine irony, cultivating a holy apatheia seems to be the best way to learn how to be a passionate lover of all humanity! Such detachment is certainly conducive to scaling the ladder of love and should be recommended to all!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Deo
**
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.**

I don’t agree. All marriages outside the Christian world might be said to lack the status of a sacrament. However, all marriages outside the Christian world are traditionally between male and female. If you relegate marriage to a sacrament only, you dismiss the world wide weight of tradition that can be piled up on top of the tradition of Christian marriage. Plato and Aristotle, for example, might not have viewed marriage as a sacrament. But that it is a relationship between members of the opposite sex they would assume as the lawful tradition. Speaking of marriage only as sacramental means you give fodder to those who complain that Catholics should keep their sacramental morality to themselves and not expect others to follow suit. But it is not just our morality. It has been the morality of the entire human race for all of recorded history … until now.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

seagal

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. **

Non-Catholics should not be expected to follow Catholic beliefs. However, sometimes Catholic beliefs and common sense are synonymous. Homosexual marriage (legitimizing and dignifying sodomy) is simply nonsensical. On that ground along non-Catholics might be expected to agree with Catholics.

“Unnatural” is the best term. As Paul tells us in Romans: “Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”

And as Jude’s epistle remarks: "Likewise, Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns, which, in the same manner as they, indulged in sexual promiscuity and practiced unnatural vice, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.”

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Deo
**
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.**

I don’t agree. All marriages outside the Christian world might be said to lack the status of a sacrament. However, all marriages outside the Christian world are traditionally between male and female. If you relegate marriage to a sacrament only, you dismiss the world wide weight of tradition that can be piled up on top of the tradition of Christian marriage. Plato and Aristotle, for example, might not have viewed marriage as a sacrament. But that it is a relationship between members of the opposite sex they would assume as the lawful tradition. Speaking of marriage only as sacramental means you give fodder to those who complain that Catholics should keep their sacramental morality to themselves and not expect others to follow suit. But it is not just our morality. It has been the morality of the entire human race for all of recorded history … until now.

Charlemagne, I see your point. But usually when “traditional” is used in this context, it carries with it a whole host of values and associations that don’t necessarily carry with them the weight of tradition, but do carry a hefty amount of political cache in certain circles. Sacramental, for me, cuts through all of that to the reality of what marriage truly is. Moreover, I think the same folks who would object to the term “sacramental” as a narrow reference to Catholic morality would also object to “traditional” as either irrelevant or outdated.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Deo

Moreover, I think the same folks who would object to the term “sacramental” as a narrow reference to Catholic morality would also object to “traditional” as either irrelevant or outdated.

Only if they are ignorant of history.

As Chesterton put it, there is not only a democracy of the living. There is also a democracy of the dead. So far as morality goes, the dead get a vote.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

So where does Venus supposedly fit into all this?

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

Venus is supposed to represent everything 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…

Eros is a longing to connect with a person emotionally, Venus is the desire to connect carnally with someone, while they frequently go hand in hand they can also be found separate, far more commonly in the past than the present.

What I continue to fail to understand is this insistence on a special category. if you are attracted to your own sex, but you are chaste in accordance with Church teachings, then you will pray and learn to integrate your sexuality in a healthy and holy way into your life. You may indeed have one very close friend with whom you share a ***filial ***love, however, you don’t need a special category for that love.

this desperate grasping after something else, something more, is just sad. seek God, seek holiness. Stop trying to force square pegs into round holes.

This might be a good time to suggest that readers study up on detachment.

Platonic love is extremely deep and nonsexual love, it has been around for a long time

 

[GMSMPTH]

I spoke to a very wise priest on this very issue. What he told me was that marriage was not only made for people to love each other, but also to procreate. A man and a man or a woman and a woman can do no such thing. They may well love each other more fully than most heterosexual couples, but they cannot produce children. They may even be good parents and I am completely for homosexuals adopting because there are too many orphans in this world to discriminate against someone for a particular taste which, if they are careful, their children won’t even know about. The fact of the matter is marriage isn’t only about love. People knew this long ago and even in the culture of ancient Rome where homosexuality was just part of life, two people of the same sex did not marry because they could not produce children.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dakota

Platonic love is extremely deep and nonsexual love, it has been around for a long time.

Yes, even before Plato!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

GMS

**They may even be good parents and I am completely for homosexuals adopting because there are too many orphans in this world to discriminate against someone for a particular taste which, if they are careful, their children won’t even know about. **

To be that careful they would have to live in a dungeon.

 

[michelleds]

Grace & Peace!

Hi Michelle. No one’s insisting on a special category. What a couple people, myself included, are saying is that a chaste loving relationship–which has classically been termed a “platonic relationship”–is possible for human beings, and that includes human beings who are same-sex attracted. What some other folks seem to be arguing is either a) such relationships are impossible because sex must be or will be involved if it’s to be a proper loving relationship and not just a good friendship; or b) such relationships are impossible for same-sex attracted people because they’re special–i.e., unlike most human beings, same sex-attracted people would not be able to deal with or maintain such relationships and would spoil them.

I mis-typed or wasn’t thinking, reader’s choice, when I used filial as opposed to platonic. my real point, lost in my inability to actually use the word I meant to use, was that of course same sex attracted folks or “used to be gays” such as myself can have platonic friendships and relationships.

What I was trying to say, and didn’t, was that friendship cannot be wrestled and tamed, similar to the way that finding one’s future husband/wife cannot be forced. one has to live one’s life, being open to those sorts of relationships to develop, but not desperately seeking it. in much the same way, I’m trying to say, SSA Catholics, wishing to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, should not be questing after that one platonic friendship of deep and abiding love. That seems to me to be borrowing trouble when today’s got enough of it’s own.

And that led me to suggesting the study of detachment. I am in mind particularly of St. Teresa of Avila’s writings re her sisters in the convent. She instructs, practically begs, the sisters not to have “special friendships” as this would surely lead to cliques and distractions and pettiness. I think that this can be applied to our lives as single Catholics. We can seek to love all men as Jesus loved, and not focus our love, energy and attention on one friend.

however, I wholeheartedly believe that two SSA people can maintain holy friendships, and some have done so. IMHO, both parties would need to be of the same mind–avoiding near occasions of sin and seeking holiness and being faithful to the Church. If only one is reaching for those goals, this wouldn’t work for all the obvious reasons. I’m just suggesting that trying to create a “marriage without sex” relationship is not the healthiest or most productive and I’m not certain of the moral implications. It’s a matter of proportionality, perhaps.

Does this make any more sense or should I just give up? in some ways I’m trying to put into words things I’ve only thought about, not spoken about.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

michelleds

I’m just suggesting that trying to create a “marriage without sex” relationship is not the healthiest or most productive and I’m not certain of the moral implications. It’s a matter of proportionality, perhaps.

Interesting point. If two heterosexuals wanted to get married but did not ever want to have sex, what would be the point of their marrying. As Kathryn Hepburn suggested, maybe they should just buy two house and live next door to each other.

Or do the Homes and Watson thing to save on expenses.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I mis-typed or wasn’t thinking, reader’s choice, when I used filial as opposed to platonic. my real point, lost in my inability to actually use the word I meant to use, was that of course same sex attracted folks or “used to be gays” such as myself can have platonic friendships and relationships.

What I was trying to say, and didn’t, was that friendship cannot be wrestled and tamed, similar to the way that finding one’s future husband/wife cannot be forced. one has to live one’s life, being open to those sorts of relationships to develop, but not desperately seeking it. in much the same way, I’m trying to say, SSA Catholics, wishing to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, should not be questing after that one platonic friendship of deep and abiding love. That seems to me to be borrowing trouble when today’s got enough of it’s own.

And that led me to suggesting the study of detachment. I am in mind particularly of St. Teresa of Avila’s writings re her sisters in the convent. She instructs, practically begs, the sisters not to have “special friendships” as this would surely lead to cliques and distractions and pettiness. I think that this can be applied to our lives as single Catholics. We can seek to love all men as Jesus loved, and not focus our love, energy and attention on one friend.

however, I wholeheartedly believe that two SSA people can maintain holy friendships, and some have done so. IMHO, both parties would need to be of the same mind–avoiding near occasions of sin and seeking holiness and being faithful to the Church. If only one is reaching for those goals, this wouldn’t work for all the obvious reasons. I’m just suggesting that trying to create a “marriage without sex” relationship is not the healthiest or most productive and I’m not certain of the moral implications. It’s a matter of proportionality, perhaps.

Does this make any more sense or should I just give up? in some ways I’m trying to put into words things I’ve only thought about, not spoken about.

Of course it can’t be forced, if it happens, it happens if not oh well.

St. Aelred thought friendship was wonderful, he even wrote a treatise on it

Both parties would indeed need to collaborate for it to truly be beneficial. Indeed the dynamics would indeed need to be different than marriage since marriage is about children lest it prove detrimental to their salvation.

michelleds

I’m just suggesting that trying to create a “marriage without sex” relationship is not the healthiest or most productive and I’m not certain of the moral implications. It’s a matter of proportionality, perhaps.

Interesting point. If two heterosexuals wanted to get married but did not ever want to have sex, what would be the point of their marrying. As Kathryn Hepburn suggested, maybe they should just buy two house and live next door to each other.

Or do the Homes and Watson thing to save on expenses.

Having two house right next to each other is expensive for little value (do you have an extra $1500+/month lying around?)

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Dakota

**Having two house right next to each other is expensive for little value (do you have an extra $1500+/month lying around?) **

I know. Kathryn Hepburn was a Hollywood actress. I guess you’re too young to know.

 

[mitex]

Personally if two people of the same-sex love each other and are striving for a monogamous relationship (which I understand is very difficult for homosexuals to do) and want to live together and have sex that’s fine with me. That’s their personal life and business I don’t think society or the Church has a right to stop their relationship (in keeping with my limited government libertarianism).

Do I think gays should stop having so much sex? Yes. Do I think they should be able to marry? No. Do I think they should have children? No. But it retrospect If I had to choose between a promiscuous gay man who has sex all the time & shoves his agenda down my throat or a gay couple who are in a lifelong committed monogamous relationship and are discrete about their goings on; I’d choose the couple.

Personally I agree all sex outside of marriage is wrong and that marriage should remain between a man and woman. But I am not going to try to break up a homosexual couple that love each other.

That’s their choice and we should respect that. Ideally this ideal same-sex couple I’m talking should respect the Catholic belief for traditional marriage and stop forcing their agenda on us. If they don’t push me; I won’t push them.

I’m friends with a gay couple. I don’t agree with their decision not to be celibate; but I’m not going to breakup their relationship. What they’re doing is between God and them. We live in a pluralistic society and I recognize the Catholic view on homosexuality isn’t the only view out there.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Personally if two people of the same-sex love each other and are striving for a monogamous relationship (which I understand is very difficult for homosexuals to do) and want to live together and have sex that’s fine with me. That’s their personal life and business I don’t think society or the Church has a right to stop their relationship (in keeping with my limited government libertarianism).

Do I think gays should stop having so much sex? Yes. Do I think they should be able to marry? No. Do I think they should have children? No. But it retrospect If I had to choose between a promiscuous gay man who has sex all the time & shoves his agenda down my throat or a gay couple who are in a lifelong committed monogamous relationship and are discrete about their goings on; I’d choose the couple.

Personally I agree all sex outside of marriage is wrong and that marriage should remain between a man and woman. But I am not going to try to break up a homosexual couple that love each other.

That’s their choice and we should respect that. Ideally this ideal same-sex couple I’m talking should respect the Catholic belief for traditional marriage and stop forcing their agenda on us. If they don’t push me; I won’t push them.

I’m friends with a gay couple. I don’t agree with their decision not to be celibate; but I’m not going to breakup their relationship. What they’re doing is between God and them. We live in a pluralistic society and I recognize the Catholic view on homosexuality isn’t the only view out there.

If a gay couple really loves each other they don’t need sex.

PS, that dichotomy is false.