Homosexuality counter argument

[Dakota_Roberts]

When a gay man wants to marry a straight woman in the church, preventative measures are taken in the form of counseling for the disorder. It is important the man be attracted to the gender he is marrying to facilitate the love through sexual intimacy. A man must be attracted to the opposite gender (women). If that was not a requirement, the church would not provide counseling or take preventative measures even though love may be claimed.
Love over sexual attraction in marriage prevails, but love minus the gender attraction is a barrier. Otherwise the church would marry gay men “in love”.

---

I don’t recall it technically being an impediment to marriage if it is an impediment please indicate where it says so.

If the couple is incapable of conjugal relations they can not marry, even if they are of opposite sex, desire each other sexual and love each other very much.

 

[johnnyjones]

I don’t recall it technically being an impediment to marriage if it is an impediment please indicate where it says so.

If the couple is incapable of conjugal relations they can not marry, even if they are of opposite sex, desire each other sexual and love each other very much.

Do you think being attracted to the gender you are marrying is important? It doesn’t seem you do. The church does. Are actions equal to words? If the church takes action, that action being the necessity of counseling to a man with the admission of homosexual attraction, it is then saying , and this is the easy part, it’s not good. Marriages have been either postponed or cancelled due to the serious common sense issue of gender attraction being relevant. Ask your local priest if it is an impediment. I’ve asked multiple priests, and they have concurred.
Rome is aware of the counseling and preventative measures, or are they not?

Please show how the church is for gay/straight marriage.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

So uh, what’s the orientation of men who will take sheep in a pinch? Fellatio is the same whether done by males or females.

Some people are so weak they’ll take sheep; personally I consider a straight guy screwing a guy or fellatio as substantially less desperate than a guy taking a sheep.

The fact that we’re reduced to making this sort of comparison tells me all I need to know about this issue.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Do you think being attracted to the gender you are marrying is important? It doesn’t seem you do. The church does. Are actions equal to words? If the church takes action, that action being the necessity of counseling to a man with the admission of homosexual attraction, it is then saying , and this is the easy part, it’s not good. Marriages have been either postponed or cancelled due to the serious common sense issue of gender attraction being relevant. Ask your local priest if it is an impediment. I’ve asked multiple priests, and they have concurred.
Rome is aware of the counseling and preventative measures, or are they not?

Please show how the church is for gay/straight marriage.

Is it a canonical impediment? yes or no will do, if yes then show where it is a canonical impediment to marriage

 

[johnnyjones]

Is it a canonical impediment? yes or no will do, if yes then show where it is a canonical impediment to marriage

To my knowledge canonically it is not addressed. I don’t marry people though, and I embrace the judgment of the religious that do. They are drawing from common sense and logic. Not a bad idea to look to the people that do the actual marrying in the church.

Maybe you are at odds with their judgement in these matters.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

To my knowledge canonically it is not addressed. I don’t marry people though, and I embrace the judgment of the religious that do. They are drawing from common sense and logic. Not a bad idea to look to the people that do the actual marrying in the church.

Maybe you are at odds with their judgement in these matters.

If it were a serious problem it would be canonically addressed.

The whole concept of marrying for love and actually being attracted to your spouse are new concepts, previously people married who their parents said they would. Sexual attraction tends to fade over time.

 

[CopticChristian]

If it were a serious problem it would be canonically addressed.

The whole concept of marrying for love and actually being attracted to your spouse are new concepts, previously people married who their parents said they would. Sexual attraction tends to fade over time.

Dak,

You stumbled on something here. I see the pro-homosexual same sex marriage idea thrown around as to it happened in the past…have their been in antiquity dowries and marriages for the same sexed as in betrothed by their families as a parallel to the norm of heterosexual marriage?

 

[johnnyjones]

If it were a serious problem it would be canonically addressed.

The whole concept of marrying for love and actually being attracted to your spouse are new concepts, previously people married who their parents said they would. Sexual attraction tends to fade over time.

Sexual attraction might fade (even though they were newly married in the Josh Weed story) but not being attracted to the gender your marrying is critical. That would not be a case of fading.

Amazing to me is how you minimize a man not having an attraction to the gender he is marrying. A gay man could love another man and want to marry him. The church opposes that because even though there is love, he’s loving the wrong gender for marriage . In the case of a gay/straight marriage the man is loving the woman but his mind is just as disordered as the man who wants to marry a man. This is why preventative counseling is given.

The Josh weed story is unusual, as well he was not married in the Catholic Church and probably would not have been. You say not a serious problem. You should look at all the men who loved their wives and were either secretly gay or outwardly gay. Thousands of marriages have been devastated because the disorder runs deep, to the core of your sexuality. Remaining chaste is a healthier course of action but as you can see it is so strong many want to marry their own gender.

 

[BobCatholic]

Both are chosen behaviour, no?

By the same Kantian logic celibacy is bad.

But Kantian logic doesn’t apply because the atheistic premise is not applicable to celibacy and continence, which is an operation of religion.

That’s why you can’t compare the two arguments, you’re dealing with two different philosophical jurisdictions.

If you want to actually make the philosophical argument that everyone being content or celibate is evil, you have to use the correct jurisdiction.

If we use religious logic, having everyone be celibate and continent would be evil too, since 1) it violates God’s command to be fruitful and multiply and 2) Not all are called by God to this lifestyle, so those who go for this lifestyle without being called by God are going against his will and that’s evil too.

My original argument may use Kantian logic, but that’s because I’m not appealing to a different philosophical jurisdiction. I’m trying to make a secular argument.