In part, the gays are right.We all heard this almost misguided and very secular broad logic from the gay community. But I feel that in some way they are only “Scratching the surface” on the topic of marriage and it’s sacred nature. How can I tackle this whole idea that marriage is between “love and love” without being judgmental or mean but at the same time showing it’s weakness on describing the courtship of marriage?
Thank you, buffalo.Redeeming the Rainbow
A comprehensive but easy-to-understand textbook for Christians and other defenders of God’s design for family and society which explains in detail 1) the nature, causes and characteristics of homosexual dysfunction and militancy, 2) the history, philosophy, goals, methods and strategies of the global “gay” movement, 3) the urgent, escalating and imminent danger this movement represents to all aspects of Christian civilization throughout the world, and 4) specific, practical principles for responding to each of the many areas of “gay” aggression – all firmly grounded in and supported by both Scripture and non-religious logical analysis, documentation and terminology.
Well, their is nothing wrong with loving another guy. It’s just when you introduce sex into the equation or any other kind of relation branched in that category which makes it wrong.We all heard this almost misguided and very secular broad logic from the gay community. But I feel that in some way they are only “Scratching the surface” on the topic of marriage and it’s sacred nature. How can I tackle this whole idea that marriage is between “love and love” without being judgmental or mean but at the same time showing it’s weakness on describing the courtship of marriage?
Except that the study, by Mark Regenerus, doesn’t do what you claim. It wasn’t comparing children in gay households with children in heterosexual households. Even Regenerus admits that there is valid criticism of his methodology.Google for information on Dr. Mark Regnerus’ (University of Texas at Austin) recent study on the outcomes of children raised in homosexual unions. There are some articles about it on catholicvote.org and elsewhere.
- Children raised in homosexual unions do not have good outcomes; they are vulnerable and deserve our protection. Children have a right to identify with the parent of their own sex, and by accepted by the parent of the other sex.
you mean eros, agape, philia and storge right?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.
Well, I suppose so. 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.you mean eros, agape, philia and storge right?
You do realize that love is not a requirement for marriage according to canon law right?Well, I suppose so. 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.
You may have noticed some other ways that we are made that don’t really tie in with your idea of compatibility.It’s the way we are made.
Of course. And yet, one has to wonder what “love” means to those who think it is essential to marriage. I think in many cases, love was more abundantly present in arranged marriages than it is in marriages based only on feelings–i.e., being “in love.”You do realize that love is not a requirement for marriage according to canon law right?
Yes, it does. As you note, we are designed for heterosexual relations. Human children need care for a long time. They need a mom and a dad; that implies a need for permanence and fidelity. It’s true that many children have not experienced that in their lives in the last few generations. That’s because of the decline of marriage and of the culture. But go back a few generations and it was the norm. There is no greater happiness in this life than marital love expressed in permanence, fidelity, and openness to life.You may have noticed some other ways that we are made that don’t really tie in with your idea of compatibility.
A woman ovulates just once a month. With just one egg so she can produce one child. When she conceives, she’s out of the production line for about a year.
Men produce more sperm than you could count every second of the day. That’s because we’re never out of the production line and why we feel like sex all the time. If we impregnate one woman, the production line goes on and we are made – literally made, to go on and impregnate as many as we can.
Our fertility goes on many years after a woman has reached a point where she cannot conceive. That’s because we are made, literally made, to keep on producing offspring without any regard for the woman we share our cave/hut/apartment.
Does that sound like we’re in any way compatible for lifetime fidelity, Jim?
Maybe it would be better to say “temporarily” raised by rather than “raised by.” I didn’t say “households.”Except that the study, by Mark Regenerus, doesn’t do what you claim. It wasn’t comparing children in gay households with children in heterosexual households. Even Regenerus admits that there is valid criticism of his methodology.
Regenerus simply asked if a child had lived with two parents, either one of whom had had an extramarital association with someone of the same sex. Of 15,000 adults, do you know how many he discovered had been brought up for the whole of their childhood in a gay relationship? Two.
C’mon, Jim. If you’re saying that people should be married just because they’re sexually compatible - we’re built that way, then why should we stay together for a lifetime? Because we certainly weren’t ‘designed’ that way.Yes, it does. As you note, we are designed for heterosexual relations.
Ah well, I think that we are designed that way. But I don’t expect to convince you on an Internet forum. The institution of marriage has undergone such severe devolution in the past 50 years that it would hardly be recognizable to many who came before. The widespread acceptance of contraception, followed by the sexual revolution, replaced fidelity and permanence with serial monogamy. I don’t know that marriage can survive much longer, and if it falls, so does our civilization. Back when I got married, the Catholic rite of marriage had a little exhortation that was spoken by the priest just before the couple exchanged vows. Part of it went like this:C’mon, Jim. If you’re saying that people should be married just because they’re sexually compatible - we’re built that way, then why should we stay together for a lifetime? Because we certainly weren’t ‘designed’ that way.
This confusion about love is the product of the oversexed hippie culture of the 1960’s. Homosexual activists and the misguided who support their behavior need to realize that one doesn’t have to have sex with someone to love them as a friend. There are a lot of people that I love more than myself who I don’t have sex with, so it is possible.We all heard this almost misguided and very secular broad logic from the gay community. But I feel that in some way they are only “Scratching the surface” on the topic of marriage and it’s sacred nature. How can I tackle this whole idea that marriage is between “love and love” without being judgmental or mean but at the same time showing it’s weakness on describing the courtship of marriage?