L
ladybri77
Guest
And some people are sterile or going through menopause, but having sex is not sin if they are in a married heterosexual relationship - that’s the difference.
- Status
C
ccolley
Guest
Your statistics are pure speculation. It is a statistical truism that you can make the “statistics” SAY anything you want them to. God doesn’t “doom” anyone to sin. Fraternal Birth order effect would mean that homosexuality is “purely” genetic. I don’t believe that for one second. People who have “same sex” attraction may or may not “choose” to act on that attraction. That means that it is NOT merely genetic. Something that is purely genetic - like eye color- is not something that is affected by “free will” or social norm. If you are born with blue eyes then you carry that genetic trait for having blue eyes and will pass that down. A predisposition to being gay (IF there is one) still does not “doom” someone to sin. They can choose not to act on those feelings…just like a heterosexual person can “choose” not to act on their sexual feelings or a person whose parents are alcoholics can choose not to drink. To take any other position is to make a person with “same sex attraction” less than human.
FYI, God is not the Author of Genocide or of any evil for that matter…that is the purview of the the Evil One. God is the Author of life and love. Unfortunately, we humans often buy into what Satan has to sell. This “bill of goods” includes the idea that God doesn’t love us and that he is just out to take advantage of us and bully us.
you are in my prayers,
CC
[SIGN]I love my Papal Papa! [/SIGN]
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Re: Some thoughts on Gay Marriage.
I have a daughter who is as nice a person as you could wish to meet. And, if you met her, you would like to meet her again because she is so pleasant. You could not help but notice that she is often in the company of another very pleasant woman and you would notice that they were good friends and, like all good friends, their relationship not only lights up their life but others as well. So you would want to know these delightful people - these delightful friends better. Hopefully you would be able to and your life would be happier for it.
Then one day it would occur to you that they were a little more than friends, they had a deeper relationship than that - they were in love - they lived together - they were a gay partnership. What are you going to do now?
Are you going to deny their good qualities? Are you going to deny that knowing them has brought rays of light into your life. Are you going to deny the love they feel for each other. If you are, you are a Pharisee, putting the stale ‘moral rules’ of your religion before the obvious facts before you.
Or are you going to ask them what they do in bed because if they don’t do ‘anything’ then that’s OK is it? The absurdity of this is obvious.
But so is the absurdity of a religion that trumpets its belief in a God of Love and then says that a relationship that has lasted 22 years and that is 100% loving should be aborted because the two people concerned have the same type of genetalia! That’s not just absurd it is disgusting.
Excuse me for being forthright in my words in the last paragraph but I think they are accurate
I have a daughter who is as nice a person as you could wish to meet. And, if you met her, you would like to meet her again because she is so pleasant. You could not help but notice that she is often in the company of another very pleasant woman and you would notice that they were good friends and, like all good friends, their relationship not only lights up their life but others as well. So you would want to know these delightful people - these delightful friends better. Hopefully you would be able to and your life would be happier for it.
Then one day it would occur to you that they were a little more than friends, they had a deeper relationship than that - they were in love - they lived together - they were a gay partnership. What are you going to do now?
Are you going to deny their good qualities? Are you going to deny that knowing them has brought rays of light into your life. Are you going to deny the love they feel for each other. If you are, you are a Pharisee, putting the stale ‘moral rules’ of your religion before the obvious facts before you.
Or are you going to ask them what they do in bed because if they don’t do ‘anything’ then that’s OK is it? The absurdity of this is obvious.
But so is the absurdity of a religion that trumpets its belief in a God of Love and then says that a relationship that has lasted 22 years and that is 100% loving should be aborted because the two people concerned have the same type of genetalia! That’s not just absurd it is disgusting.
Excuse me for being forthright in my words in the last paragraph but I think they are accurate
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
In general:
Power, no. Objectification, yes.
As always with humans and their motivations, there are exceptions (S&M, etc.). Homosexual acts are a symptom of underlying issues relative to a total lack of a healthy self-image due to a childhood wherein the father was unavailable (emotionally or otherwise) and/or hypercritical and a mother who was overprotective and/or domineering. Additionally, the personality of said person is either very sensitive and/or artistic. Add the lack of same-sex friends in youth (a la Stand by Me) to the mix and the prognosis can almost certainly lead to a homosexual person. I wish that the people in the Church were as compassionate toward persons saddled with same-sex attractions as the Church Herself is, but I see that this is not true, especially here in the United States where we’ve been so poisoned with political thinking on everything that we can’t see the person suffering underneath the sinful symptoms they manifest.
So, we make degrading comments about ‘da homasexials.’
Makes me wonder, how would Jesus Himself treat a homosexual person?
P
Pons
Guest
The same reason why masturbation is wrong.
I
IHeartBenedict
Guest
I skimmed through all five pages of this thread. I may have missed it, but I did not see one post quoting the Catechism on this subject. The Catechism is, after all, the definitive teaching. So here we go:
**Chastity and homosexuality **
**2357 **Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
**2358 **The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
**2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
source link:
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#II
**Chastity and homosexuality **
**2357 **Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
**2358 **The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
**2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
source link:
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#II
C
Cinette
Guest
If I knew your daughter and her friend I would love them for the pleasantness of being with them and enjoying their company. That doesn’t mean that I like what they do.
You obviously live in the realm of the secular world. You say you have no religion - so you do not understand how we envisage things. No, we are not to judge them.
I still love my homosexual friend and we maintain contact with each other. I cannot bring myself to condemn her and I cannot agree with her lifestyle. I will not judge - that is for God.
At my local parish they have a “Gay and Lesbian Group” which the priests meets with on a regular basis. When I asked the Parish Priest about this he said that these people are deeply troubled and need our support. I have observed and worked with a couple of people whom I believe belong to this group and I see good people. It would be unfair and ugly if I or anyone were to ostracize them. Sometimes, because of a person’s family environment they could become confused regarding their sexuality and through counselling this could be brought into perspective and changed.
I have said in another posting above that I make an distinction between homosexual and gay - I do not buy the decadent gay sub-culture.
As for your daughter you have no choice - you must continue to love and support her but that does no mean that in your heart you can honestly believe that being gay is a good thing!
Cinette
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Thanks for these replies.
Mr Benedict, forgive me, but you are a Pharisee! You quote rules without looking at the situation before you. There are two people in love and you deny that love with your rules, yet you claim to believe in a God whose is all Love.
In fact you seem to believe in a God of Rules and if the rules trample on love then so be it.
Cinette and LCMS, your replies are more compassionate. I think you for that --but in the end you downgrade the love of my daughter and her partner. For example you talk of my daughter being ‘saddled’ with her homosexuality and that I cannot ‘honestly believe that being gay is a good thing’.
My friends if you knew my daughter and her partner of 22 years you would know that their love is as good as that of any married couple. You would not consider it as being in any way defective or second-best. As followers of a God of Love you would rejoice, as I do, in any instance of positive love in this world where hate too often predominates.
How great your Church might be if it celebrated love 100%.
[Allow me a little anecdote. I once discussed with a very keen Evangelical Christian. On Evolution, the Bible etc he was completely hard line. But he accepted gays! I asked him why. Answer: He knew lots of gay couples and he knew that many of their relationships were good and loving and so, no matter what his fellow evangelicals had to say,he knew that he could not reject the love that he saw with his very own eyes]
Mr Benedict, forgive me, but you are a Pharisee! You quote rules without looking at the situation before you. There are two people in love and you deny that love with your rules, yet you claim to believe in a God whose is all Love.
In fact you seem to believe in a God of Rules and if the rules trample on love then so be it.
Cinette and LCMS, your replies are more compassionate. I think you for that --but in the end you downgrade the love of my daughter and her partner. For example you talk of my daughter being ‘saddled’ with her homosexuality and that I cannot ‘honestly believe that being gay is a good thing’.
My friends if you knew my daughter and her partner of 22 years you would know that their love is as good as that of any married couple. You would not consider it as being in any way defective or second-best. As followers of a God of Love you would rejoice, as I do, in any instance of positive love in this world where hate too often predominates.
How great your Church might be if it celebrated love 100%.
[Allow me a little anecdote. I once discussed with a very keen Evangelical Christian. On Evolution, the Bible etc he was completely hard line. But he accepted gays! I asked him why. Answer: He knew lots of gay couples and he knew that many of their relationships were good and loving and so, no matter what his fellow evangelicals had to say,he knew that he could not reject the love that he saw with his very own eyes]
S
surritter
Guest
Hi Laurie,
We are all very sympathetic to your emotions. But your last anecdote really speaks volumes about how emotions – good in themselves – can sometimes cloud logic.
Catholics do indeed recognize that two people can care very much about each other. But we also realize that things – including the human body – have their rightful place. Sexual expression is not just a cultural issue; it is defined around biology.
We don’t arbitrarily copulate with whoever or whatever we feel drawn to, because our inclinations can be distorted, just as an alcoholic or bulimic person must overcome inclinations in order to treat the body with respect. Please read post #32 (linked here) and think about the connection between sex and nature.
To speak out against homosexual acts is not to “hate” gay people. Not that you said that, but you did write, “How great your Church might be if it celebrated love 100%.” I am trying to show you that we celebrate authentic love – both in body and soul – and while your daughter may seem to be celebrating love, I lovingly submit that it is only superficial love which will never be able to provide deep happiness, because her sexual expression cannot be an act that is completed as the sex act is intended. This is no fault of her own, but it is objectively a distorted action according to biology.
C
Cinette
Guest
Laurie I am also a Mother and Grandmother and I know what it means to love one’s offspring. You sound like a wonderful person - a person who loves.
We are told to love God above all things and our neighbour as ourselves. “Love one another as I have loved you…”. We are also told not to judge.
At the same time the bible guides us into what is right and wrong. I watch the people whom I believe are homosexual when I go to Mass. They are loving and they love God and they are faithful. I prefer to love them for what I see - human beings who love God. Their homosexuality is a burden. People make fun and whisper. I don’t think that is charitable. As I mentioned the Parish Priest reaches out to them. I have never been to any of their group meetings but I support it. I love my Parish Priest and I trust him. He takes good care of our spiritual needs and I am pleased to see that he leaves noone out.
I love and believe in the Catholic Church. We cannot explain all that we believe in - that is left to Faith - if we understood all the mysteries of God’s Kingdom here on earth, there would be no need for Faith. We are the biggest Christian Church - the first Church - and so we have more saints and sinners than any other Church. Right now we have a crisis because some priests have abused their position and betrayed their priesthood and the people they are supposed to serve. It is very painful. I search for answers. I remind myself that when Jesus chose his Apostles, Judas was among the 12 - are we to reject the other Apostles because of Judas? Peter who was chosen to be Christ’s representative was not perfect - just think he denied Jesus three times and not long before that he had witness Jesus’ Divinity at the transfiguration…yet he betrayed Jesus and still Jesus appointed him as the leader of His Church. Can we understand these things? There are so many mysteries which we accept because we love and trust God.
Continue to love and support your daughter the best way you can. But don’t think that the Church should compromise. I am pleased that their relationship has been long lasting - these relationships don’t usually last, especially among male homosexuals.
God bless you
Cinette
We are told to love God above all things and our neighbour as ourselves. “Love one another as I have loved you…”. We are also told not to judge.
At the same time the bible guides us into what is right and wrong. I watch the people whom I believe are homosexual when I go to Mass. They are loving and they love God and they are faithful. I prefer to love them for what I see - human beings who love God. Their homosexuality is a burden. People make fun and whisper. I don’t think that is charitable. As I mentioned the Parish Priest reaches out to them. I have never been to any of their group meetings but I support it. I love my Parish Priest and I trust him. He takes good care of our spiritual needs and I am pleased to see that he leaves noone out.
I love and believe in the Catholic Church. We cannot explain all that we believe in - that is left to Faith - if we understood all the mysteries of God’s Kingdom here on earth, there would be no need for Faith. We are the biggest Christian Church - the first Church - and so we have more saints and sinners than any other Church. Right now we have a crisis because some priests have abused their position and betrayed their priesthood and the people they are supposed to serve. It is very painful. I search for answers. I remind myself that when Jesus chose his Apostles, Judas was among the 12 - are we to reject the other Apostles because of Judas? Peter who was chosen to be Christ’s representative was not perfect - just think he denied Jesus three times and not long before that he had witness Jesus’ Divinity at the transfiguration…yet he betrayed Jesus and still Jesus appointed him as the leader of His Church. Can we understand these things? There are so many mysteries which we accept because we love and trust God.
Continue to love and support your daughter the best way you can. But don’t think that the Church should compromise. I am pleased that their relationship has been long lasting - these relationships don’t usually last, especially among male homosexuals.
God bless you
Cinette
I
IHeartBenedict
Guest
There is no compassion in condoning sin.
God loves murderers too. Should we say murder is okay because God loves them? Your logic is faulty.
L
ladybri77
Guest
Then he is ignoring the scriptural Truth about homosexuality. We as Christians are called to love the sinner, hate the sin, to be loving to those caught in any sin. If people have the Holy Spirit within them, they will know the Truth and the Truth will set them free. He would give us knowledge of what’s best for us. Out of love, we must tell people the truth because we want to help them avoid spiritual death as confirmed in scripture. But then we would respect their decision and continue to pray for them.
I bet when you first heard that your daughter was gay, you weren’t happy about it.
Praying for you.
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Thank you all for your replies. Please find my answers below;
Surritter.
I have read the post you suggested. I know a bit about Natural Law Ethics * and I will deal with what you say in a moment.
You say re my daughter’s love for her partner;
I lovingly submit that it is only superficial love which will never be able to provide deep happiness, because her sexual expression cannot be an act that is completed as the sex act is intended
You say that, but if you knew my daughter you would be able to find no difference between their love and that of any married couple you care to name. ‘Superficial’ it is not! So why do you say it is? After all you do not know her. The answer is as follows:
You reason that Natural Law, implies that all gay partnerships are wrong and so must be defective/superficial, in some way. You therefore ignore the evidence before your very eyes of the many gay people whose love is fine and good. In doing so you deny the God of Love whom you worship.
I reason that as Natural Law ethics implies that my daughter’s relationship is defective when it manifestly is not, that shows that Natural Law ethics is mistaken in some way.
There is a middle way – it is possible to interpret Natural Law ethics as allowing gay partnerships but this is, of course, not church policy. So much the worse for the church.
Cinette
What a kind and loving post. May your God bless you for it.
Your church has been a force for good in the world. It has changed its teachings in the past, one day it will like you, put love first and cease to condemn those gay couples who express it.
Benedict
Your logic – Natural Law implies that gay couples no matter how loving are in sin, so it is wrong to have a gay partnership
My logic – Natural Law implies that gay couples are in sin, however manifestly many are not because their love is sometimes more wonderful that many straights, therefore Natural Law ethics is faulty or has been misapplied.
Both pieces of reasoning are valid so we have a choice of rejecting as not really love a relationship that to all neutral people manifests it OR deciding that the cold reasoning of Natural Law ethics.
We know what the Pharisees did in a parallel situation and we know what Jesus did. You, a believer are the Pharisee here!
[Forgive me if I say that I take offence with your comparison of my daughter’s relationship with that of a murderer. The latter is the ultimate hate crime the former exactly the opposite]
Ladybri
When I first heard I asked her if she was sure but I did not mind. My only worry was that she would suffer prejudice from people who rejected her because of it.
Your ‘Truth’ does not make anyone free it constricts & oppresses. My daughter and partner who have loved for 22 years are to give up their wonderful relationship because of your ‘truth’! Why not look again at your ‘truth’?
You mention the Bible.
The OT does condemn gay relationships in the same place as it condemns farmers who plant more than one type of crop in a field and tells men how to cut their beards! As you do not agree with the latter, why pick out the former?
St Paul also condemns gays. But he was a man of his time and accepted slavery and would not allow women to speak in church. We do not think he was inspired re the last two – I think he was mistaken too over the first.
It is not a clear cut as you think. Christians used to use the Bible to support slavery you know and there are more texts supporting that than
there are against gays.*
Surritter.
I have read the post you suggested. I know a bit about Natural Law Ethics * and I will deal with what you say in a moment.
You say re my daughter’s love for her partner;
I lovingly submit that it is only superficial love which will never be able to provide deep happiness, because her sexual expression cannot be an act that is completed as the sex act is intended
You say that, but if you knew my daughter you would be able to find no difference between their love and that of any married couple you care to name. ‘Superficial’ it is not! So why do you say it is? After all you do not know her. The answer is as follows:
You reason that Natural Law, implies that all gay partnerships are wrong and so must be defective/superficial, in some way. You therefore ignore the evidence before your very eyes of the many gay people whose love is fine and good. In doing so you deny the God of Love whom you worship.
I reason that as Natural Law ethics implies that my daughter’s relationship is defective when it manifestly is not, that shows that Natural Law ethics is mistaken in some way.
There is a middle way – it is possible to interpret Natural Law ethics as allowing gay partnerships but this is, of course, not church policy. So much the worse for the church.
Cinette
What a kind and loving post. May your God bless you for it.
Your church has been a force for good in the world. It has changed its teachings in the past, one day it will like you, put love first and cease to condemn those gay couples who express it.
Benedict
Your logic – Natural Law implies that gay couples no matter how loving are in sin, so it is wrong to have a gay partnership
My logic – Natural Law implies that gay couples are in sin, however manifestly many are not because their love is sometimes more wonderful that many straights, therefore Natural Law ethics is faulty or has been misapplied.
Both pieces of reasoning are valid so we have a choice of rejecting as not really love a relationship that to all neutral people manifests it OR deciding that the cold reasoning of Natural Law ethics.
We know what the Pharisees did in a parallel situation and we know what Jesus did. You, a believer are the Pharisee here!
[Forgive me if I say that I take offence with your comparison of my daughter’s relationship with that of a murderer. The latter is the ultimate hate crime the former exactly the opposite]
Ladybri
When I first heard I asked her if she was sure but I did not mind. My only worry was that she would suffer prejudice from people who rejected her because of it.
Your ‘Truth’ does not make anyone free it constricts & oppresses. My daughter and partner who have loved for 22 years are to give up their wonderful relationship because of your ‘truth’! Why not look again at your ‘truth’?
You mention the Bible.
The OT does condemn gay relationships in the same place as it condemns farmers who plant more than one type of crop in a field and tells men how to cut their beards! As you do not agree with the latter, why pick out the former?
St Paul also condemns gays. But he was a man of his time and accepted slavery and would not allow women to speak in church. We do not think he was inspired re the last two – I think he was mistaken too over the first.
It is not a clear cut as you think. Christians used to use the Bible to support slavery you know and there are more texts supporting that than
there are against gays.*
S
surritter
Guest
Thank you for your kind reply, Laurie. I still must respectfully disagree. You seem to be aware of Natural Law, but then say that there is a middle ground. Is it really justifiable to distort Natural Law simply because someone “feels like it”? Your rationale is that there are “many gay people whose love is fine and good.” You admit that this differs from Natural Law, so your response is that Natural Law is wrong. Is that a logical reaction? 
But what is your definition of “fine and good”? Are you saying that they care about each other very deeply? There is nothing wrong with that. Or are you referring to a sexual expression of that love? If it is the latter, then please tell me how her body is saying “I love you” to her partner. (Not the play-by-play details – but what innate purpose do her actions have that transmit love? Is it simply “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine?”)
We are not souls–capable of love–that are simply trapped in a body. (This is a view that many people hold today.) We are body/soul creatures. Both are important, yet they are inseparable. We can express love with just the body (prostitution), or just the soul (words/actions), or both (marriage).
Your daughter’s relationship is not a full expression of love because she cannot biologically say “I give everything I am and everything I have to you in a complementary way.”
You wrote that I claim your daughter’s relationship to be defective, but you say that “it manifestly is not.” What is the “manifest” definition of full love between two people? That is the crux of the question.
But what is your definition of “fine and good”? Are you saying that they care about each other very deeply? There is nothing wrong with that. Or are you referring to a sexual expression of that love? If it is the latter, then please tell me how her body is saying “I love you” to her partner. (Not the play-by-play details – but what innate purpose do her actions have that transmit love? Is it simply “I’ll scratch your back, you scratch mine?”)
We are not souls–capable of love–that are simply trapped in a body. (This is a view that many people hold today.) We are body/soul creatures. Both are important, yet they are inseparable. We can express love with just the body (prostitution), or just the soul (words/actions), or both (marriage).
Your daughter’s relationship is not a full expression of love because she cannot biologically say “I give everything I am and everything I have to you in a complementary way.”
You wrote that I claim your daughter’s relationship to be defective, but you say that “it manifestly is not.” What is the “manifest” definition of full love between two people? That is the crux of the question.
L
LCMS_No_More
Guest
Actually, it depends on which aspect of love you mean. It is certainly possible to love someone (phileo) who you are having illicit relations with. The result will be unsatisfying relations because they aren’t a full expression of true eros (which everyone misinterprets as lust…I recommend reading Deus Caritas Est for the Holy Fathers treatise on eros). Sure, there’s the excitement and climax of sex, but it can’t make the same connection as a relationship with a member of the opposite sex because…well, things are built that way. That’s why I have said that I didn’t find sex with other men to be satisfying (and I won’t get into details as to why not).
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Thanks Surritter for your courteous reply. You are perceptive in what you say, so let me try and deal with your points clearly.
Natural Law as interpreted by most people implies that gay sex is always wrong.
As, it seems to me, gay sex is not always wrong, that shows that Natural Law, as interpreted by most people and the church is mistaken.
Some thinkers reckon that a deeper look at Natural Law ethics shows it does not condemn gay sex. They do not think they are distorting it rather interpreting it more accurately. [See below]
Is my reaction logical? Well if my daughter’s relationship is ‘fine and good’ then it is logical to conclude that Natural Law is mistaken or that it is misinterpreted.
It seems odd that they could live together, love each other, do everything together and you would applaud but, if they do some things in their bed that causes no harm to anyone, you feel that they are in the wrong. What they do in bed, which amounts to no more than giving each other mutual pleasure via caresses, expresses the love they feel for each other. But you think that, because this does not fulfil a biological function they ought not to express their love physically. Perhaps your rule which says you ought not to go against a biological function needs to be questioned. It seems odd if it denies love. I simply do not know what you mean by saying that because it does not express the innate purpose it cannot express love. Of course, if the innate purpose of sex is reproduction, then they cannot express that, but they can and do use sex to express love. That cannot be denied though you come close to doing so.
You say the crux of the matter is whether the relationship is ‘manifestly not defective’ and you are right. Let me explain what I mean. Imagine I were to describe the relationship between my daughter and her partner but not say that they were of the same sex. When I had finished, you would tell what a wonderful, non-defective flourishing relationship it was… That’s what I mean. And you see then how strange it would seem for you, on hearing that they were of the same sex , to go back on your judgement and declare the relationship sinful.
Finally let me tell you how to reconcile Natural Law and gay sex. This is not Catholic doctrine but, well, the church is not always right!
Sex has two functions – to express love and to enable us to reproduce. The first is the higher and more spiritual of the functions and the latter is of lesser importance. Often there is sex which can only fulfil the first – for example between older couples where the woman is past child bearing age. That is fine. Similarly there are people who cannot express the reproductive function of sex because they are gay. No problem provided they use it to express love within the context of a faithful permanent relationship.
All the best
Natural Law as interpreted by most people implies that gay sex is always wrong.
As, it seems to me, gay sex is not always wrong, that shows that Natural Law, as interpreted by most people and the church is mistaken.
Some thinkers reckon that a deeper look at Natural Law ethics shows it does not condemn gay sex. They do not think they are distorting it rather interpreting it more accurately. [See below]
Is my reaction logical? Well if my daughter’s relationship is ‘fine and good’ then it is logical to conclude that Natural Law is mistaken or that it is misinterpreted.
It seems odd that they could live together, love each other, do everything together and you would applaud but, if they do some things in their bed that causes no harm to anyone, you feel that they are in the wrong. What they do in bed, which amounts to no more than giving each other mutual pleasure via caresses, expresses the love they feel for each other. But you think that, because this does not fulfil a biological function they ought not to express their love physically. Perhaps your rule which says you ought not to go against a biological function needs to be questioned. It seems odd if it denies love. I simply do not know what you mean by saying that because it does not express the innate purpose it cannot express love. Of course, if the innate purpose of sex is reproduction, then they cannot express that, but they can and do use sex to express love. That cannot be denied though you come close to doing so.
You say the crux of the matter is whether the relationship is ‘manifestly not defective’ and you are right. Let me explain what I mean. Imagine I were to describe the relationship between my daughter and her partner but not say that they were of the same sex. When I had finished, you would tell what a wonderful, non-defective flourishing relationship it was… That’s what I mean. And you see then how strange it would seem for you, on hearing that they were of the same sex , to go back on your judgement and declare the relationship sinful.
Finally let me tell you how to reconcile Natural Law and gay sex. This is not Catholic doctrine but, well, the church is not always right!
Sex has two functions – to express love and to enable us to reproduce. The first is the higher and more spiritual of the functions and the latter is of lesser importance. Often there is sex which can only fulfil the first – for example between older couples where the woman is past child bearing age. That is fine. Similarly there are people who cannot express the reproductive function of sex because they are gay. No problem provided they use it to express love within the context of a faithful permanent relationship.
All the best
L
ladybri77
Guest
You’re talking about man’s laws or Natural Law ethics vs God’s laws. If we are to follow God and His commands and be admitted into His eternal Kingdom, we will follow what He says to be true. If we don’t accept Him into our heart and follow our own ways, then we will have to suffer the consequences. It’s our choice.
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Hi Ladybri and thanks for this post.
You misunderstand. We are discussing what God is commanding and whether the Catholic Church has got it right and, in the case of our last two points, whether you have interpreted what the Bible says about homosexuality correctly.
Of course if you have already decided that you know what God commands and you are not going to discuss it but simple say; “Follow what I know to be God’s law” then we cannot have a conversation. However I hope you will look again at my reasoning and deal with it, rather than just say it is wrong.
I look forward to that.
Regards
Laurie
PS One small point. According the official teachings of your Church Natural Law ethics IS God’s Law too.
You misunderstand. We are discussing what God is commanding and whether the Catholic Church has got it right and, in the case of our last two points, whether you have interpreted what the Bible says about homosexuality correctly.
Of course if you have already decided that you know what God commands and you are not going to discuss it but simple say; “Follow what I know to be God’s law” then we cannot have a conversation. However I hope you will look again at my reasoning and deal with it, rather than just say it is wrong.
I look forward to that.
Regards
Laurie
PS One small point. According the official teachings of your Church Natural Law ethics IS God’s Law too.
C
Cinette
Guest
Hi Laurie! You have said nothing about what your husband’s attitude is? How does he feel about his daughter’s sexual orientation?
Cinette
L
Laurie_Gibson
Guest
Hi Cinette,
Small misunderstanding. In England, ‘Laurie’ short for Laurence is a man’s name as well as a woman’s!
So I am the father and I do not mind a jot. My daughter is happy blessed by her wonderful partner of 22 years +
And her mother has no problems either!
As I said our only worries relate to difficulties she might have with bigots but fortunately the majority of people in the UK - including most Catholics ‘off the record’ - accept gay partnerships as OK
Sorry for misunderstanding.
Laurie
Small misunderstanding. In England, ‘Laurie’ short for Laurence is a man’s name as well as a woman’s!
So I am the father and I do not mind a jot. My daughter is happy blessed by her wonderful partner of 22 years +
And her mother has no problems either!
As I said our only worries relate to difficulties she might have with bigots but fortunately the majority of people in the UK - including most Catholics ‘off the record’ - accept gay partnerships as OK
Sorry for misunderstanding.
Laurie
- Status