Homosexuality, marriage and use of condoms

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexisTherese
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there is a difference between appreciating how someone of the same sex dresses or looks vs actually being attracted to them. You could say to a guy that he looks nice and dressed well as a fellow guy, and this is not out of lust or same-sex attraction.

But acting on actual same-sex attraction is at its heart lustful because there can be no procreation and no sacramental marriage
 
little foolish? the Church??.
In any case, though She may state and even explain the truth and teachings from the Lord, so as to clarify to some extend any doubts, She has never been bothered by the perception of her appearance because of these.

Lord grant that the Church may continue witnessing to the truth and may She like always, never change the truth to make it look “less foolish”. May all Your children learn “foolishness”, humility and obedience. Obedience oh Lord which is greater even than sacrifice and belief which You demand before wisdom.
 
Someone will surely tell me if I’m off base here as I’m new to Church teachings on these matters, but here goes:
We should spend our lives trying, with the help of God’s grace, to align ourselves with His purpose for us. All of our desires are for a purpose, but they can become perverted. It is a good thing to eat food, which is why we get hungry. But our appetite for food can become disordered, such that we gorge ourselves, starve ourselves, or purge. If we give in to such desires, we are taking a gift that God gave us to nourish our bodies and turning it to improper purposes, thus moving ourselves further from God’s design.

Likewise for homosexual behavior. Sexuality is a gift of God for the purpose of reproduction, and the closeness between a husband and wife is a secondary effect that serves to strengthen the main purpose. Just as with eating and then purging, homosexual behavior (and the use of contraception) takes the pleasure of God’s gift but rejects its purpose.

Marriage and sex exist primarily for reproduction, and the pleasure involved is there to reinforce its primary aim. By removing the primary aim, it simply becomes hedonism. And Christianity is not a hedonistic religion. Pleasure is not our purpose; fulfilling our Creator’s purpose is.

ETA: the reason it is not a sin for a post-menopausal woman to have sex is that she did not choose to go through menopause. But, as the story of Abraham and Sarah tells us, she still has the possibility for God to provide life. But onanism and sodomy fully reject the possibility of God’s life-creating grace to work through the marital act.
 
Last edited:
Yes the direct issue is the intrinsic value of sex is pleasure and reproduction. Homosexual acts violate reproduction as does contraception.

This is why it’s wrong, it disrespects the fundamental intrinsic value of sex
 
AlexisTherese said:
Why are gay people not allowed to get married if a couple who cannot have children can get married in Church?
Click to expand...
Because the Church holds that the marital act is coitus, not other sexually erotic activities. Impotency, not fertility, is an impediment to marriage.
Also after a married couple over 50 can continue having sex, even without the ability to have children.
Click to expand...
It’s rarely talked about, but if a couple becomes permanently unable to engage in coitus, it is expected that sexual activity in their marriage stop. I’ve heard an elderly woman suffering very a vaginal prolapse that didn’t get fixed adequately through surgery being told by a priest spiritual director on Relevant Radio tell her that what she and her husband were doing was not rightfully called sex. They hung up on her expressing she was getting too detailed and that children might be listening.
Is it because allowing a gay couple to get married in the church would challenge the use of condoms (I understand the pill is different in this case).
Click to expand...
Well, if a couple engages in other sexually climatic activity, it’s considered a sin. This is whether they’re indulging in it during their fertile window to avoid pregnancy or in other occasions unless circumstances force them to render the act incomplete.

To be honest, I’ve struggled with this one as well since I’ve been married. I don’t find coitus to be the pinnacle of sexual activity, the thing that all sexual arousal leads to.

That said, we are all called to chastity according to our state in life. We have very heteronormative ways of promoting “chastity” which are really rooted in avoiding the opportunities to sin, not in actually cultivating self control. We also obsess over the sins of lust. The way I see it, traditionally, lust and gluttony have been considered the least of the seven deadly sins. Chastity is like temperance with food. You should strive to eat a healthy diet just as you should strive to live a chaste life.

Eve Tushnet has some great insights. The video is long though

 
Roguish said:
The attraction itself is already disordered. It is true that one has not sinned if one does not act on the attraction, but that does not make the attraction properly ordered. It is no different with greed, lust, or any other feeling that pulls you toward sin. If I feel lust or greed, and resist it completely (not only in action but also in thought), I haven’t sinned. That doesn’t make greed and lust alright though. Likewise, being gay is not “fine as long as you don’t act on it”, in the same way that being greedy or lustful isn’t “fine as long as you don’t act on it”.
Click to expand...
Lust is one of the seven deadly sins. Same Sex Attraction is just attraction. It is attraction that is not properly ordered toward its end, but if we’re talking about vice, then we’re talking about lust. And even opposite sex attraction is filled with lust. We are ALL called to chastity according to our state in life. Singling out homosexuals as especially sinful or more sinful that heterosexuals is pretty messed up.
The attraction and love between a man and a woman is intrinsically different from that between two people of the same gender. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that two homosexual individuals cannot feel some sort of love for each other; I trust that they can. But to claim that it is the same love that exists between man and woman (when properly matched) is patently false.
Click to expand...
It is not intrinsically different. It’s simply directed toward a different sex.
Falling in love prior to marriage is a historically new thing. Romantic love HAD been considered a form of lust, a mere temptation to fornicate and commit adultery, often promising longevity it didn’t actually live up to while leading people into poor decisions.

There’s nothing about eros that is in our wedding vows. Rather it has been a cultural shift rooted in romance novels that led us to glorify eros. The problem remains the same though. Even if we fall in love first, we must recognize that eros must be lifted up to the level of agape. And agape has nothing to do with sexuality. The sexual component is eros, but eros itself is hampered with the effects of original sin regardless of who we’re attracted to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top