How Do Those Who Call Themselves Catholic Support Gay Marriage?

[kanrok]

Do you also have a problem with people who call themselves catholic supporting divorce? Jesus never addressed homosexuality, but he did discuss divorce.

Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.
Luke 16:18

So why no rallies, court challenges and condemnation of the laws which allow divorce. Is it not as great a sin?

We’ve been down this sad road in this thread already.

Read above.

 

[GEddie]

So what you are saying is that a homosexual is NOT equal to a heterosexual because of a sin?

Actually, I never used the word sin!

If a behavior is abberant on purely human grounds, that is reason enough for the general society to not uphold it.

Which is not, a priori, equal to persecution of those who choose to engage in it.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[kanrok]

Actually, I never used the word sin!

If a behavior is abberant on purely human grounds, that is reason enough for the general society to not uphold it.

Which is not, a priori, equal to persecution of those who choose to engage in it.

ICXC NIKA.

Yep.

No need to appeal to religion.

Sodomy - both for hetero and homosexuals is intrinsically disordered.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Actually, I never used the word sin!

If a behavior is abberant on purely human grounds, that is reason enough for the general society to not uphold it.

Which is not, a priori, equal to persecution of those who choose to engage in it.

ICXC NIKA.

Can you provide some other examples of actions that are opposed on these grounds? That is, actions which do not harm any outside party, but still should be frowned upon?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Yep.

No need to appeal to religion.

Sodomy - both for hetero and homosexuals is intrinsically disordered.

You’ll find that most of the secular world doesn’t accept that idea that actions can be “ordered” or “disordered.” Why? Because it relies on the concept of natural law, which also has no broad acceptance.

 

[GEddie]

Can you provide some other examples of actions that are opposed on these grounds? That is, actions which do not harm any outside party, but still should be frowned upon?

Well, it is not a “sin” to walk around nude, and harms nobody, including the one who does it; but in an habitually clothed society, it is considered aberrant to do so; and every jurisdiction in the USA restricts or bans this behavior.

ICXC NIKA

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Well, it is not a “sin” to walk around nude, and harms nobody, including the one who does it; but in an habitually clothed society, it is considered aberrant to do so; and every jurisdiction in the USA restricts or bans this behavior.

ICXC NIKA

But this isn’t a natural law argument, it’s is a socially constructed one. Making this argument against homosexual activity would essentially boil down to “You can’t do it because society thinks its gross.” Furthermore, some would argue that harm most certainly does occur- unless you believe children being exposed to genitalia is a neutral experience.

 

[GEddie]

But this isn’t a natural law argument, it’s is a socially constructed one. Making this argument against homosexual activity would essentially boil down to “You can’t do it because society thinks its gross.” Furthermore, some would argue that harm most certainly does occur- unless you believe children being exposed to genitalia is a neutral experience.

No; (in regard to gay marriage) more like “Society thinks it’s abnormal and so will not uphold it; however, you have freedom to do as you will – without its official sanction.”

As to the nude body, it **should **be considered a neutral experience, except that we are conditioned to see human bodies as shameful sexual engines first and foremost. That’s a whole other topic.

ICXC NIKA

 

[AnimalSpirits]

No; (in regard to gay marriage) more like “Society thinks it’s abnormal and so will not uphold it; however, you have freedom to do as you will – without its official sanction.”

As to the nude body, it **should **be considered a neutral experience, except that we are conditioned to see human bodies as shameful sexual engines first and foremost. That’s a whole other topic.

ICXC NIKA

And we’ve yet to see why Bob the Secularist, who cares not for natural law or religion based arguments, should consider same sex attraction abnormal.

And regardless, you seem to acknowledge that exposure to genitalia can in fact be considered harmful. Thus, the nudity comparison doesn’t hold up, unless we reach a point at which said harm no longer occurs.

 

[mexolic]

For the life of me, I cannot understand how any Catholic with a passing knowledge of the Bible, the Catechism, Papal directives like Humane Vitae and the corporal and spiritual works of mercy could ever support gay marriage.

Having knowledge of the faith is one thing. Putting it into practice is another. It think many Catholics just go along with what many other Catholics do. Asserting to be Catholic while at the same time choosing to believe what is contrary to Catholic teaching. Nowadays that is the norm. I think Catholics succumb to slick secular arguments in support of same-sex marriage, therefore seeing the Church’s position as irrelevant. Maybe they have the “I’m not one to impose my beliefs on others” thinking. It is our love of God and neighbor that we support traditional marriage. It does matter.

 

[GEddie]

And we’ve yet to see why Bob the Secularist, who cares not for natural law or religion based arguments, should consider same sex attraction abnormal.

And regardless, you seem to acknowledge that exposure to genitalia can in fact be considered harmful. Thus, the nudity comparison doesn’t hold up, unless we reach a point at which said harm no longer occurs.

If children need to be protected from seeing the human body (when every child already has one), how much more should they be protected from exposure to abberant sexual relationships!

I don’t argue natural law and never used the term. I am not a philosopher and do not play one on television.

To me, the issue is that homosexuality is physically abberant, because it defeats a basic human function for pure pleasure. This is just the same as the banquets in the Roman vomitoria in our LORD’s day, when participants would gorge themselves, then vomit, then resume the process. This was condoned then, but is rightly abhorred now.

Just as the human stomach is designed to process sustenance for the body, sexuality is physically designed for procreation. Homoeroticism and contraception are as much a misuse of the human body, PHYSICALLY (not philosophically or religiously) as were the Roman vomitoria. And if our LORD tarries long enough, will be seen as such.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Lochias]

Can you provide some other examples of actions that are opposed on these grounds? That is, actions which do not harm any outside party, but still should be frowned upon?

Homosexual acts do in fact harm outside parties, mostly through the destruction of the family unit, through the propagation of sexual inhibition which leads to more pregnancies by young people and spread of STDs, and though the movement’s oppression of freedom of religious expression.

 

[GEddie]

Homosexual acts do in fact harm outside parties, mostly through the destruction of the family unit, through the propagation of sexual inhibition which leads to more pregnancies by young people and spread of STDs, and though the movement’s oppression of freedom of religious expression.

Except ISTM you meant to say " sexual DISinhibition."

ICXC NIKA

 

[Lochias]

Except ISTM you meant to say " sexual DISinhibition."

ICXC NIKA

Heh, yes.

 

[frobert]

Homosexual acts do in fact harm outside parties, mostly through the destruction of the family unit, through the propagation of sexual inhibition which leads to more pregnancies by young people and spread of STDs, and though the movement’s oppression of freedom of religious expression.

Homosexual acts do not destroy the basic family unit. To those of us who are gay loving someone of the same sex and having same-sex is natural. We do not advocate that people not get married, not have children or not to remain faithful to each other, nor get divorced. I personally don’t believe that homosexuals should get married to opposite sex partners because opposite-sex is not natural to them and could very well lead to a breakup of the family.

Perhaps you are confusing the gay rights movement with the sexual revolution that does advocate for sexual freedom to do whatever one wants sexually. Most GLBT people advocate for lifelong monogamous relationships.

Most GLBT people do not advocate for religious oppression and do appreciate respect as individuals and not to be grouped with some non-existent stereotype that you carry around in your head. Many of us are practicing Catholics.

STDs are spread by risky sex and unprotected sex with multiple partners. Except for some gay sexual practices which are more prone to AIDS sexual orientation doesn’t play much of a role in STDs.

Based on natural law, the Catholic Church calls ANY sex that excludes the possibility of procreation disordered.

Perhaps you find it difficult to believe that minorities of both straight and gay sexual radicals exist and advocate for some things that most of us find distasteful. There are gays living a destructive lifestyle just as there are straights who are living a destructive lifestyle. However they are minorities.

For whatever reason it appears that a small vocal group of Catholics along with the anti-LGBT lobbyists want to make homosexuality into a boogeyman. Unfortunately you are doing a good job of it.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

If children need to be protected from seeing the human body (when every child already has one), how much more should they be protected from exposure to abberant sexual relationships!

I’d think children shouldn’t be exposed to any sexual content.

I don’t argue natural law and never used the term. I am not a philosopher and do not play one on television.

To me, the issue is that homosexuality is physically abberant, because it defeats a basic human function for pure pleasure. This is just the same as the banquets in the Roman vomitoria in our LORD’s day, when participants would gorge themselves, then vomit, then resume the process. This was condoned then, but is rightly abhorred now.

Just as the human stomach is designed to process sustenance for the body, sexuality is physically designed for procreation. Homoeroticism and contraception are as much a misuse of the human body, PHYSICALLY (not philosophically or religiously) as were the Roman vomitoria. And if our LORD tarries long enough, will be seen as such.

ICXC NIKA

Know it or not, you’re making a natural law argument,.

Without getting into banned topics, the assumption that human body parts are “designed” for a purpose conflicts with the secular understanding of life. Human reproductive organs aren’t designed for procreation, any more than the Sun is designed to heat the Earth. When something arises from a “mindless” process, talking about it’s “design” makes no sense.

Furthermore, there’s a great deal of subjectivity in determining what the “purpose” of something might be. It’s true that eyes are good at seeing, but is it an abomination to use them to communicate annoyance rolleyes? Hands are good at grasping things, but should be shun those who use them to communicate (sign language)?

Also, some animals seem to have discovered that sex is fun, and as such have plenty of non-reproductive sex. If non-reproductive sex occurs with humanity’s close relatives (e.g. Bonobos), then it seems that you and nature disagree about the natural use of sex organs.

Lasting, the vomitoria are not what you think they are. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vomitorium

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Homosexual acts do in fact harm outside parties, mostly through the destruction of the family unit, through the propagation of sexual inhibition which leads to more pregnancies by young people and spread of STDs, and though the movement’s oppression of freedom of religious expression.

I patiently await proof that two men having sex in private will cause families to break down. Outside of the rare transfusion issue, STDs can only spread between the two individuals having sex.

 

[kanrok]

I patiently await proof that two men having sex in private will cause families to break down. Outside of the rare transfusion issue, STDs can only spread between the two individuals having sex.

Maybe I missed something, but how does this relate to the subject matter of the thread?

 

[GEddie]

Maybe I missed something, but how does this relate to the subject matter of the thread?

It doesn’t.

The thread has been hijacked, and I’d expect it to go poof in the next few hours.

ICXC NIKA

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Maybe I missed something, but how does this relate to the subject matter of the thread?

I don’t know? I’m responding to people’s comments, not moderating the thread.