LGBT equality same as black equality

[Bill_7154]

Blacks were enslaved, bought and sold, treated like dogs. They were breeded by their owners to produce large strong wrokers. Now look at the % of unwed black girls have babies compared to white girls. This could be cause and effect. They were linched for things they did and also linched for fun on occasion. And linched when a white woman was raped by a white man and she/the community blamed a black man and linched him ‘for justice’.
When slaves were freed they were still treated like scum. This might have went on for a couple of decades.
Externally- they are still treated with bias (they are drug dealers, if in a store you need to watch them because they are going to steal something, they are all in gangs, they are criminals, there is still subtle racism today. I know that interratial couples are gauked at with anger and hatred…
Society is ‘afraid’ of them, not so with glbt community.

Internally- How would you be raised and feel about yourself if your great great granddaddy was a slave? No African Americans have ANY initial african americans to look up to, this must make them feel like ****. Since they were treated like dogs, whipped and abused, some of this could have taken this behavior and ‘brought it home with them’, using harsher punnishment on their children. They have no African American’s (first generation, probably few if any 2nd generation) they can look up to as scholars, men who achieved in the fields of science, math, literature, etc. I think many of them feel like society doesn’t care about them and then think back and make a link to slavery as the start of all that. So they get pregant out of wedlock and without ability to support the kid b/c they were ‘bread’ like farm animals when they were slaves, this lead to the thinking of promiscuousity as normal and good.
If society is going to equate lgbt with black I think there are many other marginalized groups that get to get in line AHEAD of them: Children raised by the state, in group homes for kids or foster parents, gettting shuffled about- and while a lot I’m sure do a great job (one former client had her kid taken in by a woman she knw who was rich. Took him on trips around the world. Lived a life of luxury. I"m not sure how true it is today, but back in the day welfare kids were taken in for the checks the gov’t gives the parents and abused/neglected.
All children who grow up with only one parent I think deserves to get in line ahead of lgtb. They only got 1/2 the love and probably not much good quality care becasue the single parent (mom almost always) was out working 2 jobs to stay above water. So the kid didn’t have a dad to bonk with nor was mom around much to bond with.
Kids who grew up abused and neglected. They didn’t have the chance to develop normally, they developed anormally and all those deficits they carry with them make it harder for them to get and sustain employment and adjust to live and live normal (social, marriage, emotional/mental/psychological deficits that make it harder for them to get by in the world than the average glbt.
Those groups are off the top of my head, there may be others not yet included to figure this out, some groups already have a protected status or whatever like the mentally ill.

God Bless and keep up the good work!
Bill

 

[Alindawyl]

Sure, and I can agree with you. But that’s also a very tidy thing to say which ignores a whole host of moral complexities related to how people love, form relationships, etc. For instance:, two unmarried opposite-sex attracted people on a date–if either of them has a sexual thought about the other prior to the date, does the date then become a near occassion of sin or, worse, a way of acting upon or expressing the desire to engage in a sexual relationship and therefore representative of a sinful act? In either case, should no one ever go on a date?

Experiencing a feeling of desire is not the least bit sinful in and of itself. Thoughts pop into our minds all the time without us consciously bringing them up. Those thoughts only become sinful if we welcome them, dwell upon them, or otherwise act upon them. Sin is always an act of the will.

Think of those thoughts as temptations. Experiencing temptation isn’t sinful. Christ was tempted by Satan and yet he never sinned. If simply experiencing temptation was sinful, we could not say that Christ never sinned. Our response to temptation should follow the example given to us by our Lord when he was confronted with it - firmly turn away from and reject temptation by turning toward what is good.

This is why the teaching on concupiscence is so important–which teaching, in a nutshell, is that all human desire is oriented toward some good, but that we often have trouble (due to original sin) determining how to pursue or receive those goods appropriately. A woman’s beauty is certainly a good. Sexual pleasure is certainly a good. To desire both is no sin. To desire both without a reference to the greater good of chasity* may* become sin and lead to lustful thoughts. To pursue both, however, without subordinating the desire for these goods to the higher good of chastity* is certainly* sin. This is true for a man who is attracted to women, but it must also be true for a woman who is attracted to women. Why should that be the case? Here’s why:

If a woman’s attraction to another woman is somehow in a more disordered state than a woman’s attraction to a man or a man’s to a woman, it must be because the thing to which such a woman is attracted–the beauty of a woman’s body–does not represent a good for a woman: the beauty of a woman’s body represents the wrong object of another woman’s attraction, i.e., it is disordered because it is oriented toward something that, because she is a woman, lacks the good for her. The object of her attraction is, for her, an evil. To desire it is disordered. But this puts our hypothetical same-sex attracted woman in a bit of a pickle with regard to desire and concupiscence–the desire of women who are opposite-sex attracted is oriented toward the good of male beauty, but hers is oriented to an evil. Other women can desire the good, though in inappropriate ways (which is human concupiscence). Our hypothetical woman, however, cannot even desire the good, let alone desire it in anwy way other than inappropriately. This makes her something of a moral monster: someone whose desire is oriented, if only in part, to what is evil. Moreover, because human desire is oriented toward what is good, this makes our hypothetical woman somewhat less than- or other than human. So if same-sex attraction is intrinsically disordered but opposite-sex attraction is not, then the traditional teaching on concupiscence (that we desire what is good, but often in inappropriate ways) is incorrect. It would be incumbent upon us, then, to evaluate where the disorder actually does lie, or to assume a more classically protestant evaluation of original sin (i.e., the human capacity to desire the good is utterly destroyed, we are all fundamentally depraved and concupiscence is actual sin).

What you present here as concupiscence is not concupiscence. Concupiscence is an inclination to sin, sometimes referred to as “selfish desire”.

God made man and woman for each other, designing us to be physically compatible with and sexually attracted to the opposite sex. He did not design us to be physically compatible with or sexually attracted to the same sex. The attraction your hypothetical woman feels toward another woman is disordered because such a desire is not in line with God’s ordered design. It has nothing to do with the good of womanly beauty. And she’s not a moral monster by any stretch of the imagination. She’s a woman who is experiencing disordered desires, and because of that is in need of prayers and charity as she struggles to cope with the temptation of those desires.

All who struggle with temptation need our prayers and charity. No one deserves hate or derision. But no one deserves to be encouraged to sin. Unfortunately, encouraging people to sin is exactly what the LGBT community has chosen to do in pushing for state sanctioned licensing of sinful behavior…

 

[Bill_7154]

Regardless of propaganda to the contrary, an individuals sexual orientation is selective. No one is born having sexual desires for their own sex. As one grows up, ones sexual orientation is conditioned by many external as well as internal factors. These can be controlled by the individual. The idea that one is “born that way” is just a cop out to avoid personal responsibility for ones aberrant sexual behavior.
An individual has no control over which race they are born into.

This is a great point. Blacks are black from the moment they are born, and if there is any predjuice in the world against blacks they have NO POSSIBLE WAY AROUND IT. The clan still exists.sna jsb

The people you speak of glbt have choices. Don’t tell me that effeminate behavior (tone of voice, the way that talk, manerisms) were not manufactured by them, learning to sort of mimic someone else wh voted no. They must do this to draw attention to themselves

God Bless,
Bill

 

[Alindawyl]

But here’s the thing, Alindawyl–homosexual sex is already permitted by law. Marriage doesn’t make it more permitted. Therefore, the fight for SSM must be about something more, something more fundamentally human, then whether or how same-sex attracted folks have sex. This has been my argument.

Homosexual sex is “permitted by law” only in the sense that the default state for anything with regard to United States law is permitted unless prohibited.

That is the way it should be when it comes to homosexual sex, or any other disordered use of sex, because the only way to enforce a law against disordered sexual behavior would be to violate personal privacy on the basis of what people MIGHT do. It would be unjust and grossly evil to do that, and we cannot do evil with the excuse that we intend good to come from it. In the true use of the word tolerance, we must reluctantly tolerate the fact that people may choose to engage in homosexual sex (or for that matter have affairs or sleep around when not married) in the privacy of their own homes because the civil law can’t prevent it without resorting to immoral means.

But while we cannot use civil law to compel compliance with moral law in sexual matters which take place in private, we must still speak the truth that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and sex with anyone who is not your spouse is evil. We can’t use the civil law to legislate what contradicts the moral law. As same sex marriage would grant legal recognition and license to intrinsically disordered behavior which is sinful and contradicts the moral law, and treat disordered inclinations as if they are not disordered, it cannot be supported.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

No agenda? No organized groups?

Ed, the point is that there is no grand mother LGBT “community” organization overseeing a grand agenda. There are lots of organizations in addition to those you mention (including Axios for same-sex attracted Orthodox folks, Integrity for the Episcopalians, Dignity for the Roman Catholics, the Radical Faeries for the pagans, there’s PFLAG, GMHC, GLAAD, Act Up…the list goes on) and there are certainly lobbyists, but there is no grand cabal coordinating everything and issuing agendas and national/global communiques from on high. The activities and priorities of Group A in City B have nothing to do with those of Group C in City D, and neither are beholden to the masters of the LGBT “community” in San Francisco because those masters don’t exist. Same-sex attracted folks don’t go to a national convention, they don’t elect national LGBT “community” leaders, they don’t belong to a monolithic LGBT “community” juggernaut organization. Do some of these or even many of these organizations or lobbyists have values in common? I’m sure they do. But, again, these organizations and lobbyists are not coordinated by a vast LGBT “community” organization and its global agenda. I’m sure the Freemasons have some values in common with the KofC, but that doesn’t mean that the world of fraternal organizations is a vast front for some behind-the-scenes Grand Lodge Illuminati organization that has its tentacles in the Masons, the Elks, the KofC, the Rotary Club, the DAR and all the other similar organizations…

In short, the insistence on a national or global gay agenda perpetrated by the LGBT “community” monolith is an exercise in reductionism–reducing a vast population of folks to a specious and fantastical construct which is itself a reduction of the various values, opinions and fly-by-night agendas of a relatively small number of outspoken folks.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[BroomWagon]

This is a great point. Blacks are black from the moment they are born, and if there is any predjuice in the world against blacks they have NO POSSIBLE WAY AROUND IT. The clan still exists.sna jsb

The people you speak of glbt have choices. Don’t tell me that effeminate behavior (tone of voice, the way that talk, manerisms) were not manufactured by them, learning to sort of mimic someone else wh voted no. They must do this to draw attention to themselves

God Bless,
Bill

And in the end, we are not talking about rights, at least if we are talking about voting, water fountains, etc.

We are talking about marriage and guess what? They do have the same rights that I have on that no matter how they don’t like that argument.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

What you present here as concupiscence is not concupiscence. Concupiscence is an inclination to sin, sometimes referred to as “selfish desire”…

Alindawyl, may I suggest to you a perusal of Question 30 of the Summa for more info on concupiscence? You can find it here: newadvent.org/summa/2030.htm.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[BroomWagon]

Crime is always bad, but you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. I know the 1950s. Second, it cannot be said that every white person hated black people, much less wanted to harm them. So no, you can’t say that because black people were suffering through real injustice and harm, including death, does not in any way, detract from the fact that in America in the 1950s, there were communities with people that lived the same values, even if we didn’t all go to the same Church. Sure, there were some bad apples, and while we were taught to be polite to them, we did not associate with them.

So the correct way to look at the 1950s is the fact that Catholics lived like Catholics. Period. I recently heard on Catholic Radio that we are not back to 1957 yet but we’re getting there. That is why those who ignore biology, (what used to be) common decency and even common sense, are afraid right now because Catholics are telling the truth.

I was there. We had murders, robberies and all the rest, but we lived in functional communities and the media reflected our values. Not so today. That is why the 1950s is a very valuable role model.

Today - what is being exposed is the plan to change the hearts and minds of everyone to not just be respectful toward gay people - which I never had a problem with, to accepting gay sex as normal behavior by calling it marriage.

At this point in history, it seems you can probably get someone, somewhere to declare a squirrel a cat. And pass a law to that effect. But we are exposing the gay agenda, clearly, for all to see and understand.

Man + Woman= In most cases, children.

Man + Man= Zero chance of having children using their own sex organs.

Woman + Woman= Zero chance of having children using their own sex organs.

**Biology trumps. **Two women with the label “married” does not equal man plus woman.

Peace,
Ed

Right, the Minnesota for Marriage organization came out with some story, “it’s biology not bigotry”.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Homosexual sex is “permitted by law” only in the sense that the default state for anything with regard to United States law is permitted unless prohibited.

That is the way it should be when it comes to homosexual sex, or any other disordered use of sex, because the only way to enforce a law against disordered sexual behavior would be to violate personal privacy on the basis of what people MIGHT do. It would be unjust and grossly evil to do that, and we cannot do evil with the excuse that we intend good to come from it. In the true use of the word tolerance, we must reluctantly tolerate the fact that people may choose to engage in homosexual sex (or for that matter have affairs or sleep around when not married) in the privacy of their own homes because the civil law can’t prevent it without resorting to immoral means.

Indeed.

We can’t use the civil law to legislate what contradicts the moral law. As same sex marriage would grant legal recognition and license to intrinsically disordered behavior which is sinful and contradicts the moral law, and treat disordered inclinations as if they are not disordered, it cannot be supported.

SSM would grant legal recognition to a relationship, not to any sins, sexual or otherwise, that may occur in that relationship. This is how it is with opposite-sex marriage, this is how it would be with same-sex marriage. Marriage does not suddenly make acceptable what is unacceptable. (Though, granted, Augustine might disagree–based on the idea that you don’t need permission to do what is intrinsically good, he believed all sex was a species of fornication and that the only reason why married people may have sex is because marriage provided a license to the couple to fornicate strictly for the purposes of procreation. Even if we accept this line of reasoning, the license which marriage ostensibly gives is not to sin…nor can marriage be reduced to the license to fornicate lawfully.)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

Indeed.

SSM would grant legal recognition to a relationship, not to any sins, sexual or otherwise, that may occur in that relationship. This is how it is with opposite-sex marriage, this is how it would be with same-sex marriage. Marriage does not suddenly make acceptable what is unacceptable. (Though, granted, Augustine might disagree–based on the idea that you don’t need permission to do what is intrinsically good, he believed all sex was a species of fornication and that the only reason why married people may have sex is because marriage provided a license to the couple to fornicate strictly for the purposes of procreation. Even if we accept this line of reasoning, the license which marriage ostensibly gives is not to sin…nor can marriage be reduced to the license to fornicate lawfully.)

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

Then what you are saying is that anyone involved in a same sex relationship, for discussion, let’s say a sodomite relationship, that this in and of itself is not sinful. Correct? If this is so then you are also concluding other notions.

What you are saying then is that biological utility represents a theological or moral mandate. You don’t believe that our genitals need to match up for procreation to have physical union. Are you saying that the sex act has a greater moral value than something more intangible like emotional unity? Are you saying that you don’t accept the criticism that homosexual sex is not “open to life” suggesting that procreation is the moral standard, though it appears to define “life” in purely material/biological terms and rejects as of less value such things as intimacy and self-giving?

I think you are alluding to the misuse of sexuality as a sin. Is this correct? Are you saying that the sodomite relationship is not sinful however in this sodomite relationship that here is opportunity to sin in a committed sodomite relationship however simply being intimate with that partner is not de facto sinful?

What you are then saying is that a homosexual relationship or sodomite relationship is not sinful. You are saying that in this relationship that when two men give themselves to each other that this is love and not sin unless the sex that is in the relationship is sinful but not by virtue of the sodomite relationship.

Is this how you view same sex relationships?

 

[ManOnFire]

Regardless of propaganda to the contrary, an individuals sexual orientation is selective. No one is born having sexual desires for their own sex. As one grows up, ones sexual orientation is conditioned by many external as well as internal factors. These can be controlled by the individual. The idea that one is “born that way” is just a cop out to avoid personal responsibility for ones aberrant sexual behavior.
An individual has no control over which race they are born into.

Here’s research that says Homosexuals can be grown:

The Archives of Sexual Behavior reports: “One of the most salient findings of this study is that 46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.”

Marie, E. Tomeo, et al., “Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons,” Archives of Sexual Behavior 30 (2001): 539.

In other words, kids who were molested by adults from the same gender have a much higher than average tendency to be homosexuals, indicating that it most certainly can be created.

I’m not so sure I agree with your claim that it can be controlled. The brain loves pleasure. For those homosexuals who have regular positive experiences in their lifestyles (frequent pleasure), theirs brains are going to go in rebellion at the thought of giving it up. It’s not dissimilar to food. Food is pleasure, that’s why people have such a hard time losing weight. Who wants less pleasure in their lives? No one. If we could educate more people as to why this phenomenon, they would be somewhat freer, albeit difficult in many cases, to make an informed free will decision, even though they’ll be fighting previous habits.

 

[Alindawyl]

Alindawyl, may I suggest to you a perusal of Question 30 of the Summa for more info on concupiscence? You can find it here: newadvent.org/summa/2030.htm.

Deo Gratias, may I suggest to you a perusal of paragraphs 2514-2515 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? You can find them here:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a9.htm#2514

Now re-read Question 30 of the Summa in light of what the CCC says about concupiscence, because that is the context within which St. Thomas is writing.

SSM would grant legal recognition to a relationship, not to any sins, sexual or otherwise, that may occur in that relationship.

Yes, it would grant legal recognition to a relationship… but a relationship based upon what? Based upon a disordered desire for gravely sinful sexual relations. Granting legal recognition to a disordered desire encourages acting upon it by presenting the disordered desire as if it is not actually disordered. We would be enabling people to sin, which is no act of charity. Not only is it no act of charity to lead others into sin, it makes us complicit in their sin.

To argue that sexual desire for the same sex is not disordered, or homosexual acts are not gravely sinful, is to argue for falsehood.

 

[CopticChristian]

Deo Gratias, may I suggest to you a perusal of paragraphs 2514-2515 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? You can find them here:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a9.htm#2514

Now re-read Question 30 of the Summa in light of what the CCC says about concupiscence, because that is the context within which St. Thomas is writing.

Yes, it would grant legal recognition to a relationship… but a relationship based upon what? Based upon a disordered desire for gravely sinful sexual relations. Granting legal recognition to a disordered desire encourages acting upon it by presenting the disordered desire as if it is not actually disordered. We would be enabling people to sin, which is no act of charity. Not only is it no act of charity to lead others into sin, it makes us complicit in their sin.

To argue that sexual desire for the same sex is not disordered, or homosexual acts are not gravely sinful, is to argue for falsehood.

Al,

This is interesting and relevant. I would like Mark to address this post and my post #129…we wait.

 

[edwest2]

This is still being presented as non-communicating, isolated groups. This is an inaccurate portrayal.

ilga.org/

---

victoryfund.org/our_story/history

---

As one of California’s oldest LGBT Political Action Committees, ECCOPAC has been on the front lines of the political battlefield since we were founded in 1982. We monitor all legislative issues that may have a direct or indirect impact on our community. Through our efforts and affiliations, ECCOPAC is a potent political voice for hundreds of thousands of individuals throughout the country — particularly in Southern California.

---

teamlpac.com/

Peace,
Ed

 

[Glad2behome]

I think these two YouTube videos, one made by a Roman Catholic Priest and one made by a devout Roman Catholic. They both say the Churches teaching on homosexual, that just because has homosexual feelings, does not mean someone needs to act on them.

youtube.com/watch?v=bXq4izbFgAM&feature=player_embedded
youtube.com/watch?v=K0sILSapUUc

 

[mitex]

Gay rights are not the same as racial civil rights. And I’m telling you this as a gay conservative Christian.

The basic goals of equal protection under the law have already been achieved. Hate crimes laws now cover virtually all homosexual persons, discrimination on sexual orientation in government employment was banned by President Clinton and still stands, and gays can serve in the military.

I’d say if that was the extent of gay rights, I’d be on board. But it’s not, they want radical redefinition of marriage and the family, the right to endless unhealthy sex, and more. It’s disgusting.

And I’m with conservatives that the private sector and religious groups shouldn’t be forced to accommodate anyone they disagree with (although I might make an exception for the disabled) but that’s about it.

 

[CopticChristian]

This speech given by Rev Phil Snider yesterday posted on MSN yesterday answers your very question quite cleverly!

now.msn.com/rev-phil-snider-preacher-gives-gay-rights-speech-with-a-twist

Daddy,

Oh, this is clever. I see that this was put up to show how Protestants wrongly fought for slavery using the Bible. Can you imagine what that was like in those days? It is clever to expose the notion that Protestants use the Bible alone and argue this and argue that. It is clever because Protestants have no teaching Church and this guy Snyder is Disciples of Christ. He speaks only for Phil Snyder as Protestants you know never say anything that is from the Bible as infallible and inerrant. It is just one guy saying this or that. It is clever because he forgot his notes and I hope he gets back on the podium with the right speech.

Slavery and homosexuality are non-sequitors.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

My apologies, Alindawyl. I had hoped to respond to your post much earlier, but was unable to do so 'til now.

Deo Gratias, may I suggest to you a perusal of paragraphs 2514-2515 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? You can find them here:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a9.htm#2514

Now re-read Question 30 of the Summa in light of what the CCC says about concupiscence, because that is the context within which St. Thomas is writing.

I hope that what you’re saying is that the catechism and St. Thomas are both writing within the stream of Catholic tradition…because St. Thomas was certainly not referring to the Roman Catechism when he wrote–partly because the first such official catechism was produced at Trent approximately 300 years after St. Thomas’ death.

Assuming that you’re affirming that both Aquinas and the current catechism are representative of a singular tradition, let me assure you that I’ve not written anything on concupiscence in this thread that would run counter to tradition. I’ll summarize what I wrote earlier on the concupiscence of the lower appetite: it is human desire oriented to a good which is pursued or appropriated in an inappropriate way.

Since we’re talking about concupiscence, perhaps you could help me to understand how a same-sex attracted person’s attraction to someone of the same sex who is not their spouse represents an objective disorder whereas an opposite-sex attracted person’s attraction to someone of the opposite sex who is not their spouse is not objectively disordered? Indeed, when opposite-sex attracted people are attracted to each other and court each other, this is generally smiled upon and encouraged, notwithstanding the fact that both people in such a dating relationship are obviously not each others’ spouses. On the other hand, two same-sex attracted people on a date are indulging a desire that is objectively disordered. So where does the difference lie regarding the nature of the desire involved? In what way is same-sex attraction invariably oriented toward something evil, whereas opposite-sex attraction is not?

It is this idea that same-sex attraction represents an* invariable* attraction to evil which suggests that what’s at stake here, really, is what concupiscence actually is and means–and this has everything to do with what being human is and means. Apart from the idea that same-sex attracted people are inhuman monsters incapable of an attraction to a good object, there are issues of salvation brought up here. I.e., if it is inappropriate for a man to be attracted to another man, but not inappropriate for a woman to be attracted to a man, are we not saying that the good for a man is different than the good for a woman? And if that’s what we’re saying–i.e., the good is relative to a person’s sex–then are we not saying that human nature is not one thing but that there is a man human nature and a woman human nature as the goods to which men and women are oriented are necessarily and fundamentally different based on their sex? And if we’re saying that there are, in fact, two fundamentally different human natures, what then can we say about the salvation of women since Christ came to us assuming a man human nature, not a woman human nature, and what is not assumed is not redeemed?

We can go into all of this further if you like.

Yes, it would grant legal recognition to a relationship… but a relationship based upon what?

Reciprocated love leading to a desire to share a life together?

Based upon a disordered desire for gravely sinful sexual relations.

Analogously, would you say that a man and woman on a date are expressing a disordered desire for gravely sinful sexual relations (i.e., sex with someone not one’s spouse)? If same-sex attraction is oriented toward a specific act or category of acts rather than to a person of the same sex, is opposite-sex attraction also an orientation to a specific act or category of acts rather than a person of the opposite sex?

Are you arguing that a marriage can only be a marriage if a licit sexual act occurs in it and that, since a licit act requires a husband’s orgasm during vaginal penetration of his wife, a same-sex couple cannot therefore be married? If so, what are you saying regarding the marriage between Our Lady and Joseph, Our Lady’s Most Chaste Spouse? Is that marriage invalid?

To argue that sexual desire for the same sex is not disordered, or homosexual acts are not gravely sinful, is to argue for falsehood.

This is my argument: regardless of how you conceive of sexual sin, marriage does not give one permission to engage in it. A married husband and wife do not have permission to engage in sexual sin with each other simply because they’re married. As such, the argument that marriage would encourage people to engage in sexual sin assumes that marriage actually does give one permission to engage in sexual sin. But that’s ridiculous. A same-sex married couple would not be given permission to sin sexually any more than an opposite-sex married couple. Therefore, the argument that marriage, including same-sex marriage, would validate gravely sinful sexual acts is baseless.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[edwest2]

Fidelity and monogamy:

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html?_r=0

Some don’t believe in the institution:

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[CopticChristian]

Grace & Peace!

My apologies, Alindawyl. I had hoped to respond to your post much earlier, but was unable to do so 'til now.

I hope that what you’re saying is that the catechism and St. Thomas are both writing within the stream of Catholic tradition…because St. Thomas was certainly not referring to the Roman Catechism when he wrote–partly because the first such official catechism was produced at Trent approximately 300 years after St. Thomas’ death.

Assuming that you’re affirming that both Aquinas and the current catechism are representative of a singular tradition, let me assure you that I’ve not written anything on concupiscence in this thread that would run counter to tradition. I’ll summarize what I wrote earlier on the concupiscence of the lower appetite: it is human desire oriented to a good which is pursued or appropriated in an inappropriate way.

Since we’re talking about concupiscence, perhaps you could help me to understand how a same-sex attracted person’s attraction to someone of the same sex who is not their spouse represents an objective disorder whereas an opposite-sex attracted person’s attraction to someone of the opposite sex who is not their spouse is not objectively disordered? Indeed, when opposite-sex attracted people are attracted to each other and court each other, this is generally smiled upon and encouraged, notwithstanding the fact that both people in such a dating relationship are obviously not each others’ spouses. On the other hand, two same-sex attracted people on a date are indulging a desire that is objectively disordered. So where does the difference lie regarding the nature of the desire involved? In what way is same-sex attraction invariably oriented toward something evil, whereas opposite-sex attraction is not?

We can go into all of this further if you like.

Reciprocated love leading to a desire to share a life together?

Analogously, would you say that a man and woman on a date are expressing a disordered desire for gravely sinful sexual relations (i.e., sex with someone not one’s spouse)? If same-sex attraction is oriented toward a specific act or category of acts rather than to a person of the same sex, is opposite-sex attraction also an orientation to a specific act or category of acts rather than a person of the opposite sex?

Are you arguing that a marriage can only be a marriage if a licit sexual act occurs in it and that, since a licit act requires a husband’s orgasm during vaginal penetration of his wife, a same-sex couple cannot therefore be married? If so, what are you saying regarding the marriage between Our Lady and Joseph, Our Lady’s Most Chaste Spouse? Is that marriage invalid?

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

Mark,

The stratight forward answer is that sodomy is sin. Males in a same sex relationship that sodomize sin. They can of course sin beyond that as can anyone. The married man and woman, are not in sin by virtue of their relationship, however they are human and prone to sin. The sodomite in a relationship is in sin and prone to sin, however the relationship is sinful. Sin can produce sin. All can sin except that the sodomite is in sin and the male and female in a marriage are not in sin unless they sin. You are comparing the fruits of a tree, an apple, to an apple fallen off the tree, that is filled with disease. Both are subject to disease however the apple fallen and diseased is prone to disease and destruction with greater ease. One is diseased at its inception.

Now Mark, if you want me to go Aquinas on you…I will…look here…

stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/aquinas-on-homosexuality.html

It is evident,” says Aquinas,

that every emission of semen, in such a way that generation cannot follow, is contrary to man. And if this be done deliberately, it must be a sin. Summa Theologica.

Sodomy, Mark, you will have to accept may include emission of semen regardless of the love of the sodomites and it is sin…

So what does Aquinas say about using body parts for other than their function?

Aquinas admits that it isn’t always wrong to use a body part contrary to its natural function. Walking on your hands is not a sin. But this is because, as Aquinas puts it, “man’s good is not much opposed by such inordinate use.” It is acceptable to use a body part contrary to its natural function if this helps man as a whole, or at least doesn’t frustrate the natural purpose of that whole. Walking on your hands does not frustrate the purpose God has given man, and so it is morally acceptable. But homosexuality does frustrate this purpose. Man is designed by God to procreate. Homosexuality thwarts that function. That makes it morally wrong.

Therefore Mark, a sodomizing relationship is morally wrong and is sin.

Regardless of what you conjure up about concupiscence and implore the thinking of Aquinas. Aquinas would not agree that sodomy is not sin.