Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Okay, I’ll grant you that “holy virginity” is a more perfect way of life than married life because it has as its sole aim or end God. That would, indeed, make it more perfect if it’s pure and unmitigated end is the perfect end of the beatific vision.

It seems like you are very grudgingly conceding the point.

However, that is not to say that virginity, per se, is more perfect because there are many reasons to be a virgin. The qualifier is “holy” virginity. If your reason to be a virgin is because of social circumstance or avoidance of evil, then it is not sufficient for holy virginity since the end or reason for - shall we say - “less than holy” virginity is not God but avoidance of sin, or one’s own spiritual skin, so to speak, which is not the same as loving God for his own sake.

Celibacy is higher because it allows one to more fully pursue God.

“If your reason to be a virgin is because of social circumstance or avoidance of evil,” that reminds me strongly of those who claim that it isn’t fair to mandate celibacy for gay people as celibacy is only good if it is absolutely and completely free of anything that might force them to consider it and by that they argue that gay people should be allowed to marry. What absolute nonsense.

Which brings me back to a point raised by cena concerning vows. If it is to be anything like a holy state or even a commitment it must involve a “free choice” in fact a continual free choice. Just as holy virginity depends upon free choice. From the Encyclical you quoted:

In order to be a vow or “permanent agreement,” marriage cannot depend upon some factor that undermines the free choice.

For gay marriage advocates to claim that homosexuality is not a choice means, by that very admission, that they undermine the very requirements for a gay union to be a marriage since, in its contractual aspect marriage must be a free choice entered into without compulsion.

Yet, homosexuality is, by the admission of homosexuals themselves, not a free choice. Ergo, homosexuality or compulsive attraction cannot be the grounds for constituting a marriage which by its very nature requires a continual free act of the will; a determination of the will that homosexuals concede they are not capable of since their “attraction” to the person they “want” to marry is not a choice.

That logic is so bad I could use it to argue against heterosexual marriage because heterosexuality isn’t a free choice either.

Ironic that you would say that.

Given Joie de Vivre constant claim that marriage isn’t about love, support of homosexual marriage and insinuation that same sex celibate love with homosexual undertones was once normal and accepted in Jewish tradition and I think my hypothesis is correct.

Here are some comments from this thread that I used to support my statement:

"The interesting thing is that historically it was believed that same sex sexual behavior wasn’t some sin that could only happen to a few people, it was viewed as a sin that could befall anyone as heterosexuality hadn’t been invented yet. "

“Men being physically (nonsexually) and emotionally intimate was perceived as perfectly normal.”

“I love how if a gay couple exhibits a butch/femme split then that is a problem and if they are both butch or both femme that is a problem too; damned it you do, damned if you don’t.”

Regarding Thorfl’s statement: As Cardinal Erdo wrote about same-sex unions in the midterm report from the Synod on the Family, “it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.”

Joie de Vivre stated:

“It was not explicitly rejected therefore it could not have been categorically rejected. PS is right that not including it in the final draft of the interim report does not necessarily mean it was rejected.”

It is clear Joie de Vivre supports gay marriage, believes same sex relationships are superior to heterosexual relationships and that homosexual sexual relationships could be positive role models for the Church.

Let me elaborate on each of these quotes:

1. I was commenting that heterosexuality and homosexuality had not been invented as categories of people thus it was perceived anyone could do it, also there was fairly rigid separation of the sexes meaning it’d be far easier to engage in sex with a man as opposed to a woman.
2. I explicitly said “nonsexually” and thus to interpret that as supporting homosexual undertones is absurd. I am talking about things like John reclining upon Jesus, Newman and St. John sleeping in the same bed, etc.
3. I was commenting how some people claim that a butch femme pairing is interpreted by some as them knowing man is created male and female with them trying to simulate it and some people claiming that if both are butch or femme that they really are engaging in narcissistic self love.
4. I was elaborating on how the Church works.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Wasn’t the midterm a rough draft that got leaked to the public?

No, actually it was released as Pope Francis has worked strongly on transparency.

I think he was talking about same sex friendships for some of them.

There is no evidence for his claim about the homosexual undertones. He cited Jonathan and David and the one talking called the other one brother, and unless they practiced incest in those times they didn’t mean love in a sexual/romantic sense. Like nowadays you would not call your love my brother or my sister when talking to them. You would say that to your best friend.

I was indeed talking about same sex friendships, cf. David and Jonathan; Jesus and John; Newman and St. John; Lord Tennyson and Alfred Hallam, etc. Sadly to a hammer everything looks like nails. I have never insinuated that any of these were sexual in the slightest.

Joie, I believe, is female and there has been a continued and implicit (sometimes explicit) appeal to accepting homosexual attractions as legitimate in her posts.

I think BrassAnkles has understood what she is getting at.

It is a commonly used strategy. If X is okay, then why not Y? It is a strategy that relies on probing to find the intellectual and moral weaknesses of anyone promoting the opposing view and then eroding the relative few defenses they present in that area in order to find “a way in.” This might be viewed as the Achilles’ Heel approach to promoting a point of view.

The strength of it is that anyone using it can feign being personally affronted by any accusation of intellectual dishonesty since their actual points are inchoate and depend entirely upon the sympathies of their opponents. They will simply deny actually making the points, but will insist you allowed the points as acceptable which is why they brought them up to begin with. Artful dodging would be another telling label.

It may be that she isn’t doing this intentionally since rationalization and self-deception could initiate the psycho-logical strategy - a defense mechanism of sorts - but I would suggest that forensic analysis of her posts would reveal the kind of probing and ducking, questioning and reply behaviour, that would be the give away.

Speculation bordering on libel is what that is.

I could, of course, be proven entirely wrong on this opinion, and I freely admit it is an opinion, but my opinion stands until the pudding has been “proofed,” so to speak.

Please explain what that is.

You are omitting all his other comments about supporting homosexual marriage, that homosexuality was once actually more normal and that homosexual sexual relationships can be a positive role model for the Church. Please take the time to read his comments as I have quoted them from this thread.

1. Her
2. I have never supported gay marriage
3. I never claimed they could be a positive role model.

Sorry there are too many people that I just lost track.

She’s delusional if she thinks homosexual sexual relationships are normal, good, the Church can benefit from it, or that they are better than heterosexual marriage/relationships.

The only societies with homosexuality had other serious problems as well (the Native Americans had human sacrifice, the Greeks worshipped gods who practiced incest and they themselves had legal prostitution)

It is a good thing I never claimed that they were good, what I actually did was contest the claim that gay relationships are completely and absolutely devoid of any good whatsoever, that claim simply isn’t supported by Church teaching.

 

[cena]

It seems like you are very grudgingly conceding the point.

Celibacy is higher because it allows one to more fully pursue God.

“If your reason to be a virgin is because of social circumstance or avoidance of evil,” that reminds me strongly of those who claim that it isn’t fair to mandate celibacy for gay people as celibacy is only good if it is absolutely and completely free of anything that might force them to consider it and by that they argue that gay people should be allowed to marry. What absolute nonsense.

That logic is so bad I could use it to argue against heterosexual marriage because heterosexuality isn’t a free choice either.

Let me elaborate on each of these quotes:

1. I was commenting that heterosexuality and homosexuality had not been invented as categories of people thus it was perceived anyone could do it, also there was fairly rigid separation of the sexes meaning it’d be far easier to engage in sex with a man as opposed to a woman.
2. I explicitly said “nonsexually” and thus to interpret that as supporting homosexual undertones is absurd. I am talking about things like John reclining upon Jesus, Newman and St. John sleeping in the same bed, etc.
3. I was commenting how some people claim that a butch femme pairing is interpreted by some as them knowing man is created male and female with them trying to simulate it and some people claiming that if both are butch or femme that they really are engaging in narcissistic self love.
4. I was elaborating on how the Church works.

Heterosexual marriages can produce very natural results: children while homosexual marriages can’t produce it they have to go to an outside source. Infertile people can’t produce not because heterosexuality does not produce children but because one of them has an individual problem.

Heterosexuality is natural, homosexuality is a disordered form of sexual attraction.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That logic is so bad I could use it to argue against heterosexual marriage because heterosexuality isn’t a free choice either.

I never said heterosexuality was a choice, I said marriage was. However what makes marriage a marriage is not the “attraction” which is why you go astray with your logic.

What makes marriage a marriage is the complementarity of the couple who make a decision to create, form, nurture and sustain new life using the mutually compatible reproductive organs they have been given stewardship over. That decision is a determined choice that must be sustained by much more than “attraction” or “desire.” It requires fortitude, long-suffering and an almost unfathomable infusion of grace by God.

The fact that they are “attracted” to each other sexually is not the determiner of whether they ought to marry. The determiner is their understanding of the meaning of life, God’s plan for them and their role in it. It has little to do with “attraction,” sexual or otherwise, and very much to do with an active and abiding life decision to love in the sense of willing the good of the other, as other. Attractions and desires are incidental unless they are properly aligned to or harmonized with the loving act of the will.

I am an Aristotelian on this, by the way. Your presumptions are not mine.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Heterosexual marriages can produce very natural results: children while homosexual marriages can’t produce it they have to go to an outside source. Infertile people can’t produce not because heterosexuality does not produce children but because one of them has an individual problem.

Heterosexuality is natural, homosexuality is a disordered form of sexual attraction.

This has to do with what exactly?

I never said heterosexuality was a choice, I said marriage was. However what makes marriage a marriage is not the “attraction” which is why you go astray with your logic.

What makes marriage a marriage is the complementarity of the couple who make a decision to create, form, nurture and sustain new life using the mutually compatible reproductive organs they have been guven stewardship over. That decision is a choice.

The fact that they are “attracted” to each other sexually is not the determiner of whether they ought to marry. The determiner is their understanding of the meaning of life, God’s plan for them and their role in it. It has little to do with “attraction,” sexual or otherwise, and very much to do with an active and abiding life decision to love in the sense of willing the good of the other, as other. Attractions and desires are incidental unless they are properly aligned to or harmonized with the loving act of the will.

I am an Aristotelian on this, by the way. Your presumptions are not mine.

Good, then we agree that marrying for love is a terrible idea .

 

[cena]

This has to do with what exactly?

Good, then we agree that marrying for love is a terrible idea .

It’s fine as long as it makes sense. If the sole purpose of marriage is love than immoral things like adultery and polygamy are justified.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Speculation bordering on libel is what that is.

That would be the personal affront posturing.

I never denied you were a master at the strategy and would try to use it on me, as well.

Just calling 'em as I sees 'em.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s fine as long as it makes sense. If the sole purpose of marriage is love than immoral things like adultery and polygamy are justified.

Depends on your definition of “love.”

 

[Ositokc]

It may be hard for some of you to see this, but any marriage, Gay or Straight, is not some endless lust filled sex party. Why not spend less time worrying about someone else’s sex life and show a little compassion, respect and maybe some actual tolerance. The irony being is that your completely negative and un-Christian like judgmental attitude is doing the exact opposite of what you wish, in that it is making more people realize that gay marriage is not wrong at all. Thank you and please keep up your disparaging remarks. Once again, I am wishing sir Elton John and David Furnish congratulations and a happy married life together!

 

[cena]

Depends on your definition of “love.”

Feelings, infatuation

 

[cena]

It may be hard for some of you to see this, but any marriage, Gay or Straight, is not some endless lust filled sex party. Why not spend less time worrying about someone else’s sex life and show a little compassion, respect and maybe some actual tolerance. The irony being is that your completely negative and un-Christian like judgmental attitude is doing the exact opposite of what you wish, in that it is making more people realize that gay marriage is not wrong at all. Thank you and please keep up your disparaging remarks. Once again, I am wishing sir Elton John and David Furnish congratulations and a happy married life together!

I asked you earlier that if a brother and sister wanted to get married and no consequences could foreseen why not? What if incest isn’t as bad we think it is and we are discriminating and judging these people? What if culture is just ‘familyphobic’ and intolerant?

Obviously that is ridiculous. Incest is a disorded form of the love they should have of one another.

They are living in sodomy.

You can judge actions (like homosexual actions) are mortal sins and therefore should be avoided.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

It’s fine as long as it makes sense. If the sole purpose of marriage is love than immoral things like adultery and polygamy are justified.

If marriage is founded on “love” then it is inherently unstable and liable to things like divorce when the “love” runs out.

That would be the personal affront posturing.

I never denied you were a master at the strategy and would try to use it on me, as well.

Just calling 'em as I sees 'em.

You insinuated I am being intellectual dishonest, that is insulting. The only time I do anything similar is when JW people show up on my doorstep in which I take more pleasure than I should in rattling their faith with a logic argument I got from a friend who is now sadly deceased.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Originally Posted by Peter Plato
It is a commonly used strategy. If X is okay, then why not Y? It is a strategy that relies on probing to find the intellectual and moral weaknesses of anyone promoting the opposing view and then eroding the relative few defenses they present in that area in order to find “a way in.” This might be viewed as the Achilles’ Heel approach to promoting a point of view.

The strength of it is that anyone using it can feign being personally affronted by any accusation of intellectual dishonesty since their actual points are inchoate and depend entirely upon the sympathies of their opponents. They will simply deny actually making the points, but will insist you allowed the points as acceptable which is why they brought them up to begin with. Artful dodging would be another telling label.

Originally Posted by Peter Plato
I could, of course, be proven entirely wrong on this opinion, and I freely admit it is an opinion, but my opinion stands until the pudding has been “proofed,” so to speak.

Good, then we agree that marrying for love is a terrible idea.

The proof in the pudding, no?

 

[bisco1]

It may be hard for some of you to see this, but any marriage, Gay or Straight, is not some endless lust filled sex party. Why not spend less time worrying about someone else’s sex life and show a little compassion, respect and maybe some actual tolerance. The irony being is that your completely negative and un-Christian like judgmental attitude is doing the exact opposite of what you wish, in that it is making more people realize that gay marriage is not wrong at all. Thank you and please keep up your disparaging remarks. Once again, I am wishing sir Elton John and David Furnish congratulations and a happy married life together!

why don’t you show some tolerance for our faith? then maybe you’ll feel the love.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

The proof in the pudding, no?

I said marrying for love is a terrible idea, I have not and am not denying that, I full stand by that statement.
Peter Plato:

I never said heterosexuality was a choice, I said marriage was. However what makes marriage a marriage is not the “attraction” which is why you go astray with your logic.

Many people, dare I say most Westerners who marry, are marrying with love as their sole reason

 

[bisco1]

yup, that’s why my wife and i got married 37 years ago.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If marriage is founded on “love” then it is inherently unstable and liable to things like divorce when the “love” runs out.

How do you reconcile the above with classic Catholic theology that states God IS Love?

What you are doing is equivocating on the term “love” as if love simply means an unstable emotion.

That is not what love means within Catholic theology.

Love is one of the three supernatural virtues. It is a power of the soul enabled by grace that depends upon a free act of the will to choose the well-being or good of the other as other. As such a marriage MUST be founded on this love, since God IS love and the foundation of any true marriage.

Equivocation, like flattery, will get you nowhere.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It may be hard for some of you to see this, but any marriage, Gay or Straight, is not some endless lust filled sex party. Why not spend less time worrying about someone else’s sex life and show a little compassion, respect and maybe some actual tolerance. The irony being is that your completely negative and un-Christian like judgmental attitude is doing the exact opposite of what you wish, in that it is making more people realize that gay marriage is not wrong at all. Thank you and please keep up your disparaging remarks. Once again, I am wishing sir Elton John and David Furnish congratulations and a happy married life together!

More “Achilles’ Heel” logic.

Pointing out the real faults and limitations of your case is not being “negative” in any absolute sense. I am just laying out the complete landscape and trying to see it for what it is. I positively want to know the truth, the real truth and nothing but the truth, not the impressions of the policitically [sic] correct pandering to the raw emotions and appetites of those they seek to convince.

Whether “more people” choose to see that is entirely up to them. And if they want to rely on your limited depiction of reality to guide that, well, that is entirely up to them. I can’t take responsibility for their preconceptions, their reasoning nor lack thereof.

We’ll let “them” decide for themselves, shall we, like the big people they are?

I have no desire to think for them, nor to preempt their thinking by presuming to think for them.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

How do you reconcile the above with classic Catholic theology that states God IS Love?

What you are doing is equivocating on the term “love” as if love simply means an unstable emotion.

That is not what love means within Catholic theology.

Love is one of the three supernatural virtues. It is a power of the soul enabled by grace that depends upon a free act of the will to choose the well-being or good of the other as other. As such a marriage MUST be founded on this love, since God IS love and the foundation of any true marriage.

Equivocation, like flattery, will get you nowhere.

Deus Caritas Est.

I am using the modern definition of love because that is what people are using when they are marrying for “love”. Society has a warped and debauched concept of love hence the “scare quotes”. It used to be that only fools and young people that had such an absurd view of love, that kind that is mocked in Romeo and Juliet yet now it is pervasive and is the societal norm.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Deus Caritas Est.

I am using the modern definition of love because that is what people are using when they are marrying for “love”. Society has a warped and debauched concept of love hence the “scare quotes”. It used to be that only fools and young people that had such an absurd view of love, that kind that is mocked in Romeo and Juliet yet now it is pervasive and is the societal norm.

Yes, but you are using the modern definition of love to claim that marriage itself should be dismantled because that is all that marriage is.

That does not follow, however, because of what love is, even in purely human terms: an active and ongoing concern for the ultimate well-being of others as other. It is this love that forms the Christian view of how we should make any decision to begin with, as well as being, just in human terms, the ground for basic human morality.

In fact, that kind of love is, indeed, the only solid ground for marriage in the first place because active concern for the well-being of one’s partner and offspring, alone, can be the appropriate ground for any married partnership and family life to rightly be called a marriage.

What you are doing is arguing from a debilitated view of marriage that an even more debilitated view SHOULD be accepted by everyone as THE definitive view of marriage, when your debilitated view doesn’t account, in the least, for the reality of what marriage is in the first place.

In other words, you are arguing an ought from an is, rather than an ought from reasoned and reasonable ends.