There are all kinds of love: mother-child love, sibling love, family love, the love of friends, the love of a community of religious. But marriage requires marital love. And marital love requires sexual complementarity. Marital love requires the capacity to consummate the marital act. It takes opposite sex couples to do that. Same sex couples cannot by nature engage in marital love. Marital love, if we dig deeper, also requires fidelity, permanence, and openness to life. But at its essence is sexual complementarity. This is not rocket science. It’s the way we are made…My main point is that marital love is impossible for same sex couples. Other types of love are possible, but not marital love. Marital love is consummated in a conjugal act for which sexual complementarity is essential. That’s why impotence is an impediment to marriage, while infertility is not. - JimG
Hearing Dale Ahlquist talking about G.K. Chesterton on a re-broadcast from last week on EWTN radio reminded me of GKC’s remark that “Tradition is the democracy of the dead”.I figure the the best response to all the homosexual or gay arguments is to simply state that in order for me to agree with them I would have to deny or reject over 4,000 years of Judeo/Christian constant and consistent teachings. And that for me would be very foolish and, as such, I could never such a thing. My only question is am I accurate in saying the teachings of Scripture on this matter are at least 4,000 years old?
There is also another issue … very often apologists for homosexual behavior ignore the intra-gay-community newspaper articles and advertisements, which if shown to the straight community, would cause revulsion. So, there is a nasty side to the issue that gays prefer not to let others see or discuss.The Catholic Church … all of Christianity … is not based on just going with your feelings … you have friends who are engaged in homosexual behavior … and don’t want to seem “exclusive” … for example.
Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth … set down in the New Testament, in the traditions of the Christian Church, and in the teaching “structure” of the Church … it is all consistent.
Homosexual behavior goes against all of the precepts of the Church … that sex outside of marriage is a violation of the sacrament of matrimony … and that sexual relations were intended from the beginning to be between a man and a woman.
Outside of that … there really is nothing to offer in terms of encouraging or reinforcing arguments in favor of homosexuality.
There are other elements of natural law … but they only serve to reinforce the Christian [and Jewish] [and other religions’] precepts.
[Yes, people disobey the Ten Commandments … but that doesn’t make disobedience a virtue or serve to excuse bad behavior.]
Yes, I know we want to be “nice” and “non-judgemental” … but sometimes, there is just nothing that can be done to make some behaviors “inclusive”.
Read this:
catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/same-sex-marriage-and-the-infertility-objection
And also read this:
usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/21/archbishop-cordileone-gay-marriage-catholic-church/2001085/
And that’s about as mild as the criticism gets … because you can then get into the groups such as NAMBLA or the books, such as “After The Ball”. Or the statistical analyses of Judith Reisman [only 1% of men and 2% of women are involved in homosexuality]. Or the diseases that are almost exclusively common to homosexual behavior. Or the ideas of child abuse. But we’re trying to be reasonable … and it really isn’t any nice face that you can put on homosexuality.
The best way out of this dilema is not to specify the exact date, rather to open the dialogue with a vague date that causes someone’s mind to think, question, then check…I figure the the best response to all the homosexual or gay arguments is to simply state that in order for me to agree with them I would have to deny or reject over 4,000 years of Judeo/Christian constant and consistent teachings. And that for me would be very foolish and, as such, I could never such a thing. My only question is am I accurate in saying the teachings of Scripture on this matter are at least 4,000 years old?
This statement is factual, accurate, not specific…to that someone may say…I would have to deny or reject Thousands of years of Judeo/Christian constant and consistent teachings.
That’s what they want. And, technically, it’s not “homosexuality” per se but homosexual sexual activity or promotion thereof that were are arguing against. Here’s my argument against it.I figure the the best response to all the homosexual or gay arguments is to simply state that in order for me to agree with them I would have to deny or reject over 4,000 years of Judeo/Christian constant and consistent teachings.
One leap forward would be to understand that love and acceptance can be garnered by identity asI’m a celibate homosexual and I am NOT a pedophile. Monte your posts are unloving, and uncharitable.
It’s one thing to say “homosexual acts are sinful” which is something I believe and firmly state on here. I get so tired of how angry and unloving people are on here towards homosexuals.