Question: Is gay marriage sinful?

[Alex337]

I assumed that was what you meant about a good match as that was what we were discussing. Sorry if I misinterpreted. Out of interest; if you were engaged and found out they were unable to have sex would you leave them? I’ve seen others on this thread say they would.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

I am not getting married so that is irrelevant.

 

[Alex337]

It’s a hypothetical I wouldn’t.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

Good for you. (smiley face)

 

[Alex337]

Sorry, are you not comfortable with the topic? I like to find out where people sit with these things and hypothetical are a good way to test the concept. But if you’re not comfortable talking we can stop.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

Yeah let’s stop talking about that.

 

[Alex337]

No worries, sorry I overstepped.

 

[theCardinalbird]

I don’t sorry but the while article just showed again that the church cares about sex more than procreation;

Well clearly you just don’t understand the Church

it can look past people being infertile but not impotent

And for good cause. Impotency and infertility are two different things.

And that’s fine, if you want to base marriage concept of marriage on sex then you go ahead.

No. I base marriage off to be between a man and a woman. God said that they are to be fruitful and multiply, and become one flesh:

4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said:
5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh.
6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

Oh, and homosexual sex is just as unitive as heterosexual sex, so that also makes zero sense.

That is false both biologically and theologically. You do not understand that unitive love arises only in being able to consummate the marriage - becoming one flesh.

 

[theCardinalbird]

I need to sleep. I am not responding until tomorrow

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

I don’t sorry but the while article just showed again that the church cares about sex more than procreation;

Well clearly you just don’t understand the Church

Disagreeing with is different to not understanding.

Alex337:

it can look past people being infertile but not impotent

And for good cause. Impotency and infertility are two different things.

Yes, demonstrative that sex is more important to them than procreation.

No. I base marriage off to be between a man and a woman. God said that they are to be fruitful and multiply, and become one flesh:

Sorry, friend, that’s just wanting marriage to be based on sex. And honestly if that’s how you feel you should just own it.

Alex337:

Oh, and homosexual sex is just as unitive as heterosexual sex, so that also makes zero sense.

That is false both biologically and theologically. You do not understand that unitive love arises only in being able to consummate the marriage - becoming one flesh.

Sorry friend, but biologically there is nothing different in terms of chemicals created between a sterile heterosexual couple having sex and a homosexual couple having sex. They release all the same wonderful chemicals in the brain that help bond them together. As for theology, depends on which religion.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

Intercourse is a special act that society has dragged around the mud so that is probably why it seems kind of odd. You also stated that you didn’t have attractions so that might be a part of it also.

 

[Alex337]

Intercourse is a special act that society has dragged around the mud so that is probably why it seems kind of odd. You also stated that you didn’t have attractions so that might be a part of it also.

I’m not sure we can blame society, I mean different cultures have treated sex differently all through time. While the act can be intimate and romantic it isn’t intrinsically. So I suppose I’d focus more on things that we have control over, such as promises to be faithful and be with eachother. Or on things that are intrinsically linked, such as the romantic feeling itself.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

Well the Church’s view on intercourse is different than what mainstream culture is representing it as.

 

[Alex337]

All honesty the Church seems very hung up on sex. I mean they say it’s all about procreation, but given it’s open to infertile couples it’s obviously not. And it ignores that a loving impotent couple could act as adoptive parents and thus be “open to life”, instead denying them marriage purely because they can’t have sex.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Yes, demonstrative that sex is more important to them than procreation.

No I’m saying that impotency is different than infertility

Sorry, friend, that’s just wanting marriage to be based on sex. And honestly if that’s how you feel you should just own it.

Well here’s the thing. You see it as the Church putting unitive love over procreation because you see that marriage is possible for infertile couples but not gay couples in the eyes of the Church. Sorry friend but this is your opinion.

Sorry friend, but biologically there is nothing different in terms of chemicals created between a sterile heterosexual couple having sex and a homosexual couple having sex. They release all the same wonderful chemicals in the brain that help bond them together. As for theology, depends on which religion.

Two guys are different then a man and a woman. Yes, chemicals are indeed released. Gay couples committing these acts are impotent and degrade the proper use of the sexual faculty because of how they try to reach this unity.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Yes, demonstrative that sex is more important to them than procreation.

No I’m saying that impotency is different than infertility

Indeed; one allows sex and the other doesn’t. The Church cares more about the one that allows sex.

Alex337:

Sorry, friend, that’s just wanting marriage to be based on sex. And honestly if that’s how you feel you should just own it.

Well here’s the thing. You see it as the Church putting unitive love over procreation because you see that marriage is possible for infertile couples but not gay couples in the eyes of the Church. Sorry friend but this is your opinion.

It’s also not possible for people incapable of penetrative sex, which is the issue I have at the moment. It’s very clear that sex is the important thing. Sorry, but many things can be unitive beyond sex. If some people want to define their relationship on sex that’s up to them, doesn’t make much sense to me.

Alex337:

Sorry friend, but biologically there is nothing different in terms of chemicals created between a sterile heterosexual couple having sex and a homosexual couple having sex. They release all the same wonderful chemicals in the brain that help bond them together. As for theology, depends on which religion.

Two guys are different then a man and a woman. Yes, chemicals are indeed released. Gay couples committing these acts are impotent and degrade the proper use of the sexual faculty because of how they try to reach this unity.

They don’t seem impotent. And it depends on what you think is the proper use of sex. Obviously it’s not purely procreative or we would want married infertile couples not to.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Indeed; one allows sex and the other doesn’t. The Church cares more about the one that allows sex.

The Church sees that all impotent couples can’t marry. Infertile couples on the other hand can marry. Sex is important in marriage sex is used for unitive love between husband and wife (this kind of sex has to be ordered towards procreation so not oral or anal sex), and procreation (infertile couples can’t have kids but that doesn’t excuse the understanding of the natural use of the sexual faculty)

It’s also not possible for people incapable of penetrative sex, which is the issue I have at the moment

Are you speaking about impotent couples?

It’s very clear that sex is the important thing.

It is an important thing

Sorry, but many things can be unitive beyond sex. If some people want to define their relationship on sex that’s up to them, doesn’t make much sense to me.

But we are not defining the relationship just on sex. The marital act is very important and you do realize this, but marriage is also the union of husband and wife, two people who love each other and want to live their lives together, to create a family (if possible) even.

They don’t seem impotent. And it depends on what you think is the proper use of sex. Obviously it’s not purely procreative or we would want married infertile couples not to.

Homosexual couples are impotent, they are essentially sterile while infertile couples are accidentally sterile. Homosexual acts do not have procreative powers and therefore cannot be infertile because infertility is an issue only in respect to those who excercise of their procreative powers in heterosexual intercourse has failed for some reason that may be due to congenital or temporary health problems.

I clearly can’t convince you of anything so really this conversation should be over

 

[lolarose]

I do understand where you are coming from, however there are those Christians who discover their homosexuality but still go on to marry a member of the opposite sex in order to fit with the heterosexual, procreative ideal.
Consequently, this has potential to lead to adultery, huge emotional upset, lying and such other immoral acts. And all in fear of being cast out and condemned.
If the Bible says we must love thy neighbour then surely, regardless of sexuality we have to step up and accept, again provided it is genuinely all loving, between consenting adults.
After all, if homosexuality is as much of an intrinsic part of a person as heterosexuality - bearing in mind we were beautifully and intelligently created by God - then He must have placed this preference in some people for a good and wonderful reason.
Even if Christianity holds monopoly over marriage being necessary for procreation, life as we know it is never that black and white simple.
It’s also important to remember that Bible after Bible, thus scripture after scripture has been revised, re-written and edited throughout it’s thousands of years existence. Therefore, can we even ever be sure that it was God’s true intent for sex only to lead to procreation? After all, some men and women in heterosexual relationships experience no sexual pleasure and thus refuse to engage in intercourse. Furthermore, some who have had incredibly unpleasant experiences in sex can not want to engage in sex at all. And that makes them sinful over something they couldn’t control having happened to them in the name of God’s plan?

 

[Alex337]

The Church sees that all impotent couples can’t marry. Infertile couples on the other hand can marry. Sex is important in marriage sex is used for unitive love between husband and wife (this kind of sex has to be ordered towards procreation so not oral or anal sex), and procreation (infertile couples can’t have kids but that doesn’t excuse the understanding of the natural use of the sexual faculty)

Yes; and that makes no sense. There are plenty of ways to be unitive, and no reason why vaginal penetrative sex is the only way. I can think of a dozen ways to be unitive that don’t require sex off the top of my head, it just seems like sex obsession.

Meanwhile the Church tries to say sex should be for procreation but don’t care when infertile people do it, it’s obviously just sex.

Alex337:

It’s also not possible for people incapable of penetrative sex, which is the issue I have at the moment

Are you speaking about impotent couples?

Yes.

Alex337:

It’s very clear that sex is the important thing.

It is an important thing

Do you honestly think sex is the defining aspect of marriage? That it is so important that if two people were engaged and they found out that they couldn’t have sex that they should just call the whole thing off? And you think this isn’t sex obsessed?

Alex337:

Sorry, but many things can be unitive beyond sex. If some people want to define their relationship on sex that’s up to them, doesn’t make much sense to me.

But we are not defining the relationship just on sex. The marital act is very important and you do realize this, but marriage is also the union of husband and wife, two people who love each other and want to live their lives together, to create a family (if possible) even.

Sorry, but you kind of have defined it on sex. You deny that impotent couples, or couples who do not want sex, are married.

Alex337:

They don’t seem impotent. And it depends on what you think is the proper use of sex. Obviously it’s not purely procreative or we would want married infertile couples not to.

Homosexual couples are impotent, they are essentially sterile while infertile couples are accidentally sterile.

Impotent is defined as “(of a man) abnormally unable to achieve an erection or orgasm.” You’re closer to infertile but even that’s not quite right.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Yes; and that makes no sense. There are plenty of ways to be unitive, and no reason why vaginal penetrative sex is the only way

The reason being is because that is ordered towards procreation. Sorry but not sorry if you dont agree with it, I can’t change it and I do not see the Church changing God’s divine law of marriage being between man and woman.

Meanwhile the Church tries to say sex should be for procreation but don’t care when infertile people do it, it’s obviously just sex.

It should be for procreation, but some couples have to carry the cross of not being able to have kids. God only created one form of marriage. Gay marriage was never his intention and should not be put side by side with heterosexual marriage in this regard. Regardless of its fertility or infertility on any specific occasion, the coital act is procreative by its nature - as only it can produce life - even when and if procreation does not result, as it does not in the vast majority of cases during a couple’s fertile lifetime. Is the nature of marital relations fundamentally different during the frequent instances when pregnancy does not occur? Are those acts, then, equivalent in kind to homosexual acts? At a certain point, all heterosexual couples become permanently infertile due to age, but does this make the character of their acts sodomitical? It does not. They are no less marital or generative in their nature because they always remain, in their “one-flesh” aspect, unitive - something a homosexual act can never be. Unitive coition is obviously the necessary precondition for procreation, which is why these acts remain generative in their essence.

Sorry but not sorry if you don’t like it.

Do you honestly think sex is the defining aspect of marriage? That it is so important that if two people were engaged and they found out that they couldn’t have sex that they should just call the whole thing off? And you think this isn’t sex obsessed?

That answer is something I would ask a priest about.