How did you react when same sex marriage became legal?

[at9009]

SSA is natural in that a small number of people experience SSA (or bisexuality) without choosing it. Why is that so hard to grasp?

I’m not sure how to answer this secularly but many of our desires that aren’t good for us feel natural. A really bad analogy (can’t think of a better one right now) is that it might feel natural to me to eat cake for every meal. However, I can use my intellect to realize recognize that although it feels natural, it in actuality isn’t. I then would adjust my actions according to this realization.

For people with SSA, the SSA is a cross to carry. It feels natural, but one has the intellect to realize it doesn’t quite work mechanistically. What they do with that realization is up to them. It’s a hard realization and I am not trying to downplay the pain it causes nor I am trying to deny that two SSA people can care deeply for each other.

I don’t think either that one with SSA can then choose to have OSA (in most cases). Unfortunately, as a church, we haven’t done a good job supporting our SSA brothers and sisters.

I posted this link before but if anyone wants to know the “whys” of Judaism, start here:

myjewishlearning.com/article/sex-sexuality/

Thanks for the link. I can now better understand the differences in viewpoint. The main difference seems to that your viewpoint is that because the SSA is unchosen, SSM isn’t necessarily amoral? (Conversely the CC official position views the origins of the SSA as irrelevant to morality of SSM).

 

[MaryT777]

I’m not sure how to answer this secularly but many of our desires that aren’t good for us feel natural. A really bad analogy (can’t think of a better one right now) is that it might feel natural to me to eat cake for every meal. However, I can use my intellect to realize recognize that although it feels natural, it in actuality isn’t. I then would adjust my actions according to this realization.

For people with SSA, the SSA is a cross to carry. It feels natural, but one has the intellect to realize it doesn’t quite work mechanistically. What they do with that realization is up to them. It’s a hard realization and I am not trying to downplay the pain it causes nor I am trying to deny that two SSA people can care deeply for each other.

I don’t think either that one with SSA can then choose to have OSA (in most cases). Unfortunately, as a church, we haven’t done a good job supporting our SSA brothers and sisters.

Thanks for the link. I can now better understand the differences in viewpoint. The main difference seems to that your viewpoint is that because the SSA is unchosen, its not necessarily amoral? (Conversely the CC official position views the origins of the SSA as irrelevant to its morality).

Excellent post. Well stated.

 

[David_Goliath]

Ummm…I think this means you don’t wish to discuss further?

It means that any questions you have regarding the opinions I expressed are best understood by trying to understand the Jewish positions, starting with that link.

And that I don’t plan to be regularly active (if at all) on here.

 

[David_Goliath]

I’m not sure how to answer this secularly but many of our desires that aren’t good for us feel natural. A really bad analogy (can’t think of a better one right now) is that it might feel natural to me to eat cake for every meal. However, I can use my intellect to realize recognize that although it feels natural, it in actuality isn’t. I then would adjust my actions according to this realization.

For people with SSA, the SSA is a cross to carry. It feels natural, but one has the intellect to realize it doesn’t quite work mechanistically. What they do with that realization is up to them. It’s a hard realization and I am not trying to downplay the pain it causes nor I am trying to deny that two SSA people can care deeply for each other.

I don’t think either that one with SSA can then choose to have OSA (in most cases). Unfortunately, as a church, we haven’t done a good job supporting our SSA brothers and sisters.

Thanks for the link. I can now better understand the differences in viewpoint. *The main difference seems to that your viewpoint is that because the SSA is unchosen, SSM isn’t necessarily amoral? *(Conversely the CC official position views the origins of the SSA as irrelevant to morality of SSM).

Yes, something like that.

 

[Rau]

Yes, something like that.

In fact, that can mean no more than SSA is not immoral, which no one disputes. But, you now argue that the individual is a slave to the inclination, unable to choose behaviour contrary to it. Akin to a person with a medical condition that deprives him of behavioural control.

But that is not the case here, is it? The attraction can be strong, the individual may experience a great sense of isolation and longing. These are grounds for compassion and pastoral care, and potentially for reduced culpability if the individual succumbs to his desires. But this cannot transform the nature of the act.

 

[Rau]

It means that any questions you have regarding the opinions I expressed are best understood by trying to understand the Jewish positions, starting with that link.

And that I don’t plan to be regularly active (if at all) on here.

Is the Jewish faith universally pro-SSM? Oh, I’ve just answered my own question:

“Orthodox Judaism maintains the traditional Jewish bans on both sexual acts and marriage amongst members of the same sex.[4] The Orthodox Union in the United States supported a federal Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages.[5] In Australia, the Organisation of Rabbis Australasia (ORA) have made submissions and written public letters against legalising same-sex marriage.” From Wiki.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

In fact, that can mean no more than SSA is not immoral, which no one disputes. But, you now argue that the individual is a slave to the inclination, unable to choose behaviour contrary to it. Akin to a person with a medical condition that deprives him of behavioural control.

But that is not the case here, is it? The attraction can be strong, the individual may experience a great sense of isolation and longing. These are grounds for compassion and pastoral care, and potentially for reduced culpability if the individual succumbs to his desires. But this cannot transform the nature of the act.

This is true and I totally support “** These are grounds for compassion and pastoral care**,” …Because there is a very considerable body of testimony from tens of thousands of men and women who once lived as homosexuals. These ex-“gays” have renounced their former lifestyles and many have become heterosexual in self-identification and desire, while others have stopped at the point of comfort with their own gender and now enjoy freedom from same-sex desires.

There is also a number of active gays and ex-gays who admit that their “attraction” was a choice. These ex-gays do not really need pastoral care and in many cases make the best pastoral care givers.

Active gays who chose their lifestyle would not seek pastoral care because their decision is based on their own free will.

I suspect the number of gays “who made a choice” is far greater than the gay community would like to admit.

 

[Thorolfr]

There is also a number of active gays and ex-gays who admit that their “attraction” was a choice.

If we did a scientific survey, I wonder how many heterosexuals we could find who would claim that their sexual attractions are or were a conscious choice and that they could have chosen to homosexuals instead if they had wanted?

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

If we did a scientific survey, I wonder how many heterosexuals we could find who would claim that their sexual attractions are or were a conscious choice and that they could have chosen to homosexuals instead if they had wanted?

You would be surprised. You get a lot of strange people. Mick Jagger and Christopher Hitchens, who both identified as “straight”, have admitted to engaging in homosexual encounters for variety.

 

[JimG]

I don’t know of anyone who had to decide whether they were a man or a woman. That was already decided for them by genetics.

 

[Thorolfr]

I don’t know of anyone who had to decide whether they were a man or a woman. That was already decided for them by genetics.

Most gay men and lesbians have no desire to be a sex or gender other than the ones they were born with and they don’t decide those any more than what they decide their sexual orientation (i.e. who they are sexually attracted to)

 

[at9009]

Shalom!

I would just like to know how some of you felt when you found out same sex marriage (“SSM”) was legal.It could be any situation: in your state, when Prop 8 was ruled unconstitutional etc.

I tend to have lean libertarian . So like others have said, as long as no one is compelled to ‘marry,’ states can decide what they want. No matter what society does, the sacramental definition of marriage won’t change.

 

[Rau]

Most gay men and lesbians have no desire to be a sex or gender other than the ones they were born with and they don’t decide those any more than what they decide their sexual orientation (i.e. who they are sexually attracted to)

And I might agree. It’s the follow-on decisions where choice is undeniable, though Goliath seemed to deny even THAT choice existed. That many have denounced their prior choices (to indulge same sex attractions) is commendable.

 

[Rau]

If we did a scientific survey, I wonder how many heterosexuals we could find who would claim that their sexual attractions are or were a conscious choice and that they could have chosen to homosexuals instead if they had wanted?

I understand this point and have made it myself when making the point that SSA is not morally wrong. But the contrary view is that the sexual orientation “ought” be part and parcel of the sex of the person - that ought to be its source. Thus, when it is, no choice is involved or required. A man “should” be attracted to a woman because he is a man, and it is the attraction to the opposite sex that is consistent with the reproductive potential and “equipment” of the man. My explanation for SSA is to conclude that there is something “amiss” in the makeup of the man if the attractions aren’t consistent with his maleness, whereas Zoltan wishes to assume the man chooses this attraction or “learns” it through some life experience(s).

 

[eamonnroma]

So what is the physical difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals?

None A heterosexual and a homosexual man look the same.

 

[eamonnroma]

There is a solution. That Church and State be distinct and separate. Everybody has to have a civil union (what that union would be called is open to debate). People who have faith conduct a sacramental marriage in their own Church. The Church marriage would have no legal status, but would obviously be fundamental for the believer.

The civil union would be open to everyone and would have the same force as a non-religious marriage.

Then gay people would have the same status by law. If they wished to get married - they would need to go to a Church which marries gay people.

The Catholic Church (and others) would not be affected. The Church would recognize the Church marriage, and the State would recognize the civil union.

 

[Rau]

There is a solution. That Church and State be distinct and separate. Everybody has to have a civil union (what that union would be called is open to debate). People who have faith conduct a sacramental marriage in their own Church. The Church marriage would have no legal status, but would obviously be fundamental for the believer.

The civil union would be open to everyone and would have the same force as a non-religious marriage.

Then gay people would have the same status by law. If they wished to get married - they would need to go to a Church which marries gay people.

The Catholic Church (and others) would not be affected. The Church would recognize the Church marriage, and the State would recognize the civil union.

If the Civil Union is understood to arise through mutual attraction, and to form family units, then this changes little. Just a name change for marriage.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

None A heterosexual and a homosexual man look the same.

Right you are…

They look the same and are the same both physically and biologically. The homosexual is therefore a heterosexual who is attracted to the same sex. (For whatever reason) This attraction is **unnatural **because the natural human function is to mate with the opposite sex.

A person who claims to be homosexual has a problem with normalcy.

 

[eamonnroma]

If the Civil Union is understood to arise through mutual attraction, and to form family units, then this changes little. Just a name change for marriage.

Exactly. So anyone who is not a Catholic would use his freedom of conscience as he is not constrained by the morals of the Catholic Church.

 

[Rau]

Right you are…

They look the same and are the same both physically and biologically.

“Same” is so imprecise. People can be so extraordinarily different through we don’t necessarily observe the biological differences that account for that.