Is Dan Cathy a bigoted homophobe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter stewstew03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
Think about it, spencelo. How else can human reproduction occur sexually? :hmmm:

(BTW: If you can think of another way, then that, too, would be “objectively procreative.”)
Click to expand...
Permanently sterile couples cannot procreate – it’s impossible for them to. So sex between permanently sterile couples can’t be “objectively procreative,” since procreation them is impossible.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
I would not hang my hat on that.

People within the Church, like any other group of people, are a mixed bag. The Catholic spirit is good and just, 👍 but this does not mean that there were not gigantic groups of Catholic individuals who participated or were complicit in genocide against the native Americans. Yes, we are all human, even Catholics. 😦
Click to expand...
Yes, we are all human, and we are all sinners, that is true. But when those who *followed Church teachings worked with the Native Americans, which is what I am talking about, good things followed. When other Catholics came who did *not *follow the teachings of the Church, those were the people who caused trouble for those already here.

I just thought you might be interested in a part of history which is not mentioned much in the general US history books.*
 
spencelo said:
Permanently sterile couples cannot procreate – it’s impossible for them to.
Click to expand...
Right. That’s what makes them subjectively reproductive.

But they remain objectively procreative.

Unless you can figure out a way to reproduce sexually without penis-vagina sex? Is there some way you’ve come up with, spencelo, that hasn’t been proffered?
 
spencelo said:
How so? They can’t procreate.
Click to expand...
Because the act that they’re doing is penis-vagina sex, to use your term. And if you can think of any other way that humans reproduce than p-v sex, then you can see that heterosexual sex is “objectively procreative”.

Unless you can provide some OTHER way that human beings can procreate sexually?
 
PRmerger said:
Because the act that they’re doing is penis-vagina sex, to use your term. And if you can think of any other way that humans reproduce than penis-vagina sex, then you can see that heterosexual sex is “objectively procreative”.
Click to expand...
But when it’s impossible for penis-vagina sex to result in procreation (as is the case between permanently sterile couples), then how is it “objectively procreative?”
 
spencelo said:
But when it’s impossible for penis-vagina sex to result in procreation (as is the case between permanently sterile couples), then how is it “objectively procreative?”
Click to expand...
Then it’s subjectively unable to reproduce, but the act itself, when you look at what is being done, is objectively procreative.

Unless you can think of another way that human beings objectively procreate than p-v sex?
 
atheistgirl said:
My husband just had to shout ‘‘SPERM’’ within earshot of me and I got pregnant.
Click to expand...
Sarah, you have an uncanny ability to mix humor with acerbity! 😉
But were I not able to conceive, or were he to be sterile, something we could only ever have found out after we were married as we did not engage in pre-marrital sex (I like to pretend I made the man sweat it out but the reality is I almost drove myself insane :D) we would have a different marriage for sure, but just as worthy and deep and valuable. We would have adopted without a doubt.
Click to expand...
Commendable! 👍
Married same sex couples already exist 🤷
Click to expand...
I agree - there are already “informal” marriages in the gay community. So why the push to have EVERYONE recognize it as legitimate?
They too can say, they are married. Not cohabitating, not living in a legal partnership, but married.
Click to expand...
But a legal partnership, even civil unions, carry equal rights and equal protection.
It’s a matter of justice, fairness and equality.
Click to expand...
At the risk of repeating myself, a legal partnership, even civil unions, carry equal rights and equal protection.

So, we (Catholics) sense another motive. And it is that homosexuality and same-sex marriage be recognized by ALL (including the Vatican and evangelical protestants) as legitimate. If society at large is able to be persuaded of the legitimacy of their claims, then it marginalizes those of us who believe that traditional marriage deserves special recognition as a building block of our society. It also has the effect of weakening the Christocentric belief that homosexuality is a sin, similar to what has happened with divorce, adultery, and fornication. These “sins” have become all too common; people hardly look down upon them as something undesirable, and perhaps something that is to be expected. 😦

You are right about one thing (and probably more, but pointing out this one thing in particular). We (Christians in general) have failed the institution of marriage, which has been sliding down the slippery slope ever since legal restrictions on the pill were removed. We also lost the fight against “no-fault” divorce. Of course, neither of those issues are being actively fought by the Church in the public arena. The Church is not advocating for new restrictions on artificial birth control; but the Church is asking the Federal government to respect Her beliefs. The Church is not advocating for restrictions on divorce; but She is seeking to foster long-lasting marriages among parishioners.

In light of this, I think you can understand why we (as Catholics) are clinging to the idea of the traditional notion of marriage. We fully understand that once marriage becomes re-defined,*** it will toll the death knell for the institution***.
 
spencelo said:
But many opposite-sex couples (e.g., the permanently sterile) can’t procreate, so I don’t see how it’s true that their martial act is “objectively procreative.”
Click to expand...
Tge nature of the sexual act between a man and a woman is procreative–the fact that the couple is “broken” (sterile) or older (part of the nature of a woman) does not affect the nature of the act. Through no fault of their own, the act will not create a human life.

However, the inherent nature of homosexual activity is non-procreative. It is a denial of the procreative nature of sexual activity and an avoidance of what sexual activity is for, in favor of a sort of side-effect.
 
St_Francis said:
Yes, we are all human, and we are all sinners, that is true. But when those who *followed Church teachings worked with the Native Americans, which is what I am talking about, good things followed. When other Catholics came who did *not **follow the teachings of the Church, those were the people who caused trouble for those already here.

I just thought you might be interested in a part of history which is not mentioned much in the general US history books.

I apologize, I just now noticed that the person who responded was not Sarah…
Click to expand...
 
St_Francis said:
Tge nature of the sexual act between a man and a woman is procreative–the fact that the couple is “broken” (sterile) or older (part of the nature of a woman) does not affect the nature of the act.
Click to expand...
How can the nature of the sexual act be procreative when procreation is impossible?
 
spencelo said:
How can the nature of the sexual act be procreative when procreation is impossible?
Click to expand...
You, and possibly others, are overstating the Church’s teaching. The teaching is that each act be ordered toward procreation. Neither sterility, nor infertility, change the natural order of the act. What is disordered is the delibrate interference (e.g., physical and chemical barriers) in the ability to procreate.
 
spencelo said:
How can the nature of the sexual act be procreative when procreation is impossible?
Click to expand...
You are pointing to something that is disordered (sterility) and saying that it eliminates the essential nature of all other things that are not disordered (procreation). If you saw a blind person, would you draw the conclusion that the objective nature of eyes must not be visual perception?

The objective purpose of the male organ and the female organ is procreation.

The failure of procreation between a male and female is per accidens.

Thus, as PRMerger explained, all male-female conjugal unions are objectively procreative. The fact that they are unable to reproduce does not eliminate the essential function of the conjugal act.
 
stewstew03 said:
And it is that homosexuality and same-sex marriage be recognized by ALL (including the Vatican and evangelical protestants) as legitimate.
Click to expand...
And I would never support any gay couple demanding a Church perform a sacramental marriage, that it believes is profoundly wrong.
It also has the effect of weakening the Christocentric belief that homosexuality is a sin, similar to what has happened with divorce, adultery, and fornication.
Click to expand...
Is this what it’s really all about? The Christian Church can not accept marriage for homosexual couples, because of it’s belief in the sinful nature of the homosexual sex act, and presumably, when people get married, they want to have sex!

So really, the Church will never be persuaded of any agrument for homosexual marriage, because to accept any such argument would mean it would have to profoundly change it’s thinking on homosexuality.
In light of this, I think you can understand why we (as Catholics) are clinging to the idea of the traditional notion of marriage. We fully understand that once marriage becomes re-defined,*** it will toll the death knell for the institution***.
Click to expand...
While I have stated my opposition, I do understand where you’re coming from and why.

I really don’t think it will sound the death knell of traditional marriage.

Sarah x 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top