A
Alex337
Guest
Certainly. We’re individuals.
- Status
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
I agree. This particular biblical passage is NOT a good argument against homosexuality.
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
Judaism, for one, is not big on natural law. The commandments are thought to supersede natural law. Catholicism no doubt has a different viewpoint.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Except that marriages can’t logically be called abusive, adulterous or incestuous. Marriages do not commit immoral acts. It is the individuals within those marriages who commit such acts, i.e., individuals with moral agency who do, not the marriages. And those individuals are all within the same form of marriage, between a man and a woman, if it is a marriage. The adulterous or incestuous relationship formed outside the marriage isn’t a marriage, and abuse doesn’t constitute the basis for a relationship. It forms the grounds for breaking a relationship, even separation within a marriage.
You are bending the truth just a little.
A
Alex337
Guest
Sorry, friend. A marriage can be abusive, just as a relationship can be termed abusive. I see you’re trying to wriggle but that’s just how language works. And trying to avoid the question.Alex337:
Except that marriages can’t logically be called abusive, adulterous or incestuous. Marriages do not commit immoral acts. It is the individuals within those marriages who commit such acts, i.e., individuals with moral agency who do, not the marriages. And those individuals are all within the same form of marriage, between a man and a woman, if it is a marriage. The adulterous or incestuous relationship formed outside the marriage isn’t a marriage, and abuse doesn’t constitute the basis for a relationship. It forms the grounds for breaking a relationship, even separation within a marriage.
You are bending the truth just a little.
So, again are the previously mentioned cause for divorce and if not then what is according to that Bible passage that you have declared must be in relation to a Christian marriage?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Nope. People can be abusive but marriages cannot be. The word “abusive” characterizes the actions or temperament of one or both of the individuals within the marriage that led to the breakdown of the marriage relationship, it is not the form of it. The term describes the dysfunction of the individuals.
The origin of the word ’abuse’ comes from 'ab-’ (wrongly) and ‘uti’ (to use); i.e., to use wrongly. Specifically, as related to marriage, ‘abuse’ implies a deformation of marriage, not an alternative form of it.
You may as well claim murder, rape or theft are “forms” of morality rather than immoral acts.
It is no wonder that Catholicism didn’t make “sense” to you. You are subscribing to nonsense.
A
Alex337
Guest
Typical parlance dictates that a relationship can be described as abusive in nature. And you’re trying very hard to side track from the question. So; again are the previously mentioned cause for divorce and if not then what is according to that Bible passage that you have declared must be in relation to a Christian marriage?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Perhaps the relationship can be referred to as abusive, but that abuse wouldn’t be what makes the relationship a marriage. Otherwise, the Church would recognize “abusive relationship” as one of a coterie of types of marriages: "Here we have a loving marriage. Here a bland marriage. Here an abusive marriage. Here a toxic marriage. Etc. Etc.
She doesn’t. You might, but you just seem confused about what a marriage is to begin with.
By “typical parlance” you mean “lacking all specificity and intellectual rigor.” If you want to make that your standard for discussion you have just thrown out all hope for arriving at any kind of understanding of the subject at all.
Of course, post-modernist education and “thought” has driven western society to the brink of intellectual suicide, so it isn’t surprising that you subscribe to this way of “thinking,” which, in reality, isn’t thinking at all. If arriving at the truth of a matter is merely to record what anyone at any place or time has thought about the subject (typical parlance), there is no truth just white noise.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
This always goes back to making adoptive parents the same as parents who purposefully arrange for gamete donation and surrogacy. In the first case, though, the biological parents are unequal to the task of raising their own children. In the second, the children are purposefully made orphans from their biological parents from the outset in order to fulfill the wishes of their adoptive parents, as if the children were puppies. These are two totally different things.
Last edited:
E
Eddie18
Guest
Who are you trying to kid here? You sound ridiculous. The sin of sodomy does not imply rape!
“If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them” Leviticus
_ _
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination” Leviticus 18:22
“If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them” Leviticus
_ _
“Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination” Leviticus 18:22
E
Eddie18
Guest
Whatever church you are a member of is, if it’s not Catholic, is false. But that’s for another discussion.
P
PetraG
Guest
An incestuous marriage is invalid from the beginning, even if the attempt is made in good faith (that is, even if the parties were not aware they are such close relatives that marriage is not possible.)
In the case of a marriage in which there are serious sins after marriage that either defile the marriage bed or make the common conjugal life dangerous to the well-being of the children or one of the spouses, the Church allows separation with a bond remaining. In other words: the sin does not dissolve the marriage, but it releases the wronged spouse from the duties of common conjugal life that would otherwise still be binding upon them in the case of lesser difficulties. A civil divorce and judicial intervention by a civil court can be permissible in such cases to allow for just handling of the marital assets and the maintenance of the children. A morally-permissible civil divorce does not automatically mean that the either spouse is free to marry, however, or that the marriage has actually been dissolved. If the marriage is valid but has been marred by sin (or even by unintended behaviors that objectively make the common life too difficult) such that the common conjugal life is untenable, then the spouses live separately but with the bond remaining.
A marriage which did not begin with a real intention to keep the vows of continence or in which the consent of one party was obtained by the other party because the first party was kept ignorant of information needed for full consent would be found to not have been valid in the first place. A marriage is not a true marriage when it has always been based on deliberately false promises or consent obtained by use of deceit.
Marriage is defined by the Church as “a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.” The Church recognizes that some persons do have a deep-seated attraction for members of their own sex that they do not choose. The Church also retains, however, the common sense appreciation that not every deep-seated tendency a person may have is oriented to the good. It ought to be obvious that many good persons carry around deep-seated tendencies that must be mastered rather than cultivated. Therefore, the Church has not abandoned the constant teaching that homosexual acts are fundamentally different from acts which are by their nature ordered towards procreation. As to the objection that this is a cruel policy because people with these tendencies will always be lonely, the Church points out that a chaste Christian life lived outside of marriage offers a greater opportunity for total devotion to the love of the Lord and love of neighbor, which of course has its own difficulties but is by no means some kind of automatic punishment. (see following text from Persona Humana, 1975)
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.
A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.
In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. [Rom 1:24-27, I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.
Persona Humana (Declaration on certain questions concerning sexual ethics) VIII, 1975
A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.
In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. [Rom 1:24-27, I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.
Persona Humana (Declaration on certain questions concerning sexual ethics) VIII, 1975
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
I don’t think anyone would argue that murder is OK just because someone who commits murder might not be culpable for the act because they lack the self-control to stop themselves from it or lack an appreciation that the act is wrong.
The civil parallel is this: when someone who has violated some law or other is justly found to be “not guilty by reason of insanity,” that court decision does not strike down the law as unjust. It only finds that a person whose acts objectively meet the requirements for conviction may be acquitted because they weren’t capable of following the law. A person is only found guilty when they have been found BOTH to have committed an illegal act and AND were found capable of acting otherwise.
It is possible that Heaven may find someone innocent of sexual transgressions the person committed because the person was not capable of the self-control required to avoid the transgressions. That judgment does not change moral law, nor does it excuse those who taught that certain behaviors were OK when they DID have the moral capacity to appreciate moral law but chose not to exercise it.
In other words, it may be that not everyone who advocates in favor of civil marriage between persons of the same sex have transgressed moral law in the sense of being liable to Divine Judgment for their actions. We can’t know that; that kind of judgment is not our place. Those who have the capacity to understand that a morally-abhorrent law is wrong but who advocate in favor of instituting it anyway do stand liable to judgment for their failure to protect the moral code of the society of which they were an influential member. We are morally bound to do our best.
I am hoping the persons you were talking to were only explaining why we cannot know how others will be judged, rather than trying to persuade you that an immoral act can be made moral because so many people who commit it are not objectively culpable for their actions.
Last edited:
A
Alex337
Guest
You do seem intent on avoiding the question. So, care to answer it yet?Alex337:
Perhaps the relationship can be referred to as abusive, but that abuse wouldn’t be what makes the relationship a marriage. Otherwise, the Church would recognize “abusive relationship” as one of a coterie of types of marriages: "Here we have a loving marriage. Here a bland marriage. Here an abusive marriage. Here a toxic marriage. Etc. Etc.
She doesn’t. You might, but you just seem confused about what a marriage is to begin with.
By “typical parlance” you mean “lacking all specificity and intellectual rigor.” If you want to make that your standard for discussion you have just thrown out all hope for arriving at any kind of understanding of the subject at all.
Of course, post-modernist education and “thought” has driven western society to the brink of intellectual suicide, so it isn’t surprising that you subscribe to this way of “thinking,” which, in reality, isn’t thinking at all. If arriving at the truth of a matter is merely to record what anyone at any place or time has thought about the subject (typical parlance), there is no truth just white noise.
L
LittleFlower378
Guest
Same sex marriage is intrinsically evil. No circumstance or intention can make an evil moral object a moral object.
A
Alex337
Guest
That’s because your standpoint attacks adoptive parents.Alex337:
This always goes back to making adoptive parents the same as parents who purposefully arrange for gamete donation and surrogacy. In the first case, though, the biological parents are unequal to the task of raising their own children. In the second, the children are purposefully made orphans from their biological parents from the outset in order to fulfill the wishes of their adoptive parents, as if the children were puppies. These are two totally different things.
Sorry, friend, but adoptive parents are just as valid. And many, many homosexual couples choose to adopt. Some have children from previous relationships, and they remain their parent. Some continue to have the surrogate or donor in their families life, and they’re valid.
Some don’t and it seems you would prefer these children didn’t exist than that they should exist with their loving family. Because that’s the real option. These children were never going to exist otherwise.
A
Alex337
Guest
Read back over what happened in Sodom. The men of the town wanted to rape God’s messengers. That’s where the term “sodomy” came from; men desiring rape.
A
Alex337
Guest
Cool, so as Jesus was speaking about the times when divorce is acceptable (civil divorce doesn’t seem to have existed then) it would seem there are either times when He believes a Catholic can divorce or He was speaking about nonCatholic marriages; which is it?
T
theCardinalbird
Guest
No Catholic should be pursuing “gay marriage” as it is not a form of marriage created by God and therefore not marriage at all.
Also God has condemned homosexual acts (sex) many times in the Bible.
www.catholic.com
Also God has condemned homosexual acts (sex) many times in the Bible.
The Bible on Homosexual Behavior
Revisionist scholars argue the Bible does not condemn same-sex behavior. These attempts to reinterpret Scripture fail. Click here to find out why.
Last edited:
- Status