"What Is Wrong With Homosexual Marriage?" A Catholic article

[QwertyGirl]

I am fine with the Catholic definition of love (To will the good of the other). I am not fine with the conclusion the Church comes to as to what the good of the other “is”.

We disagree.

 

[pnewton]

The author of the article did. He opined that true love cannot be found in a homosexual relationship.

Yes, I thing the author made a huge logic error in that. First though, his definition is not the one that most people find offensive. He is speak of decisions that are made dispassionately, not passion affection. But even on that front he is still wrong, and on this, I find Fr. Martin having a better grasp.

The assumption the author makes, but does not voice, is that a person knows always what is best for another person, which of course is not always the case. I person can want what they believe to be truly the best for another, and still be wrong. His error does not diminish his love. If it did, the conclusion would be that no one can love.

My earlier point to you though was that by the same logic, the author’s statement was not unloving. He wrote what he deemed to be best. So showing flaws in his thinking is a better response than assuming moral fault on his part.

 

[QwertyGirl]

I agree with you on that. I don’t really feel his error is in his judgment of what is moral. It is in his lack of education and apparent life experience (to come to some of the conclusions he comes to).

 

[MagdalenaRita]

but I found the article originally posted by OP is just full of assumption, presumption, misinformation, and real ignorance.

that I object to is an article like the one OP posted, outlining the “evils” of gay marriage and the families that result from such a union as if it is anything other than an opinion.

Reading the article, he is pretty much hitting on Church teaching and the factual issues that have been expressed in many other places and that are a part of same sex marriage.

for it to be cross posted in this forum for us to discuss, you need to do better than to give the memorized line of “Divine revelation…scripture…tradition”. I think people here are looking for more.

The reason I gave the divine revelation answer is for two reasons, one - it is a Catholic article and this is a Catholic forum and the second reason is due to your question asking who decided that (procreation) is the purpose for all human existance

What I will tell you is that the article is not one that demonstrates an understanding (on the author’s part) of what a true loving homosexual relationship, replete with children, is all about.

Having sexual relations with someone that go against the natural law, the natural ways our body works, can cause physical and psychological harm. When you truly love someone you want their good, not harm.

We also do not know yet what the consequences will be on children who are raised in same sex marriages, that deprive children from one of their parents. I wonder how many children after growing up will go on a search to find the parent they never knew.

and then wanting the good of another person would not be leading them into areas that are sinful, ways that put their eternal soul in danger.

 

[0331]

Fair enough. I may never change your opinion. But we, as Catholics, still hold true to the belief that there is an order, a reason to creation—and this also involves sexuality, marriage and the family. As far as what ‘good’ is, for us, it is the highest good, the meaning and essence of good itself—God. So to will the good for someone else, to truly love them as Jesus loves us, is to will them to live a life ordered to God.

 

[FiveLinden]

A perfect solution would roughly resemble dependency exemptions and head of household exemptions being equal (so put as many people on your tax return as you want as long as they share residence) and there’s no such thing as “marital property”. Titles that indicate joint ownership would have to indicate percentage of ownership of each member and any related transactions would require an updated title.

The county clerks would get a little busier…

Interesting how often taxation matters come up when those in the US discuss marriage, and gay marriage. Where I like there is absolutely no difference in tax status whether you are a couple living together unmarried, a gay couple, or a married couple.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Therefore I personally would not apriori rule out the partner in a SS union from adopting his partner’s natural child.

What about that child having a right to have both a mom and a dad?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I dont quite see the point of abstractly litigating when the horse has already bolted?

One thing, it is not always a good idea to just let a horse bolt, sometimes you have to go get them.

Two life-long committed parents (regardless of sex) can be better than one with a string of heterosexual lovers don’t you think?

No, absolutely not, I don’t think that at all. Neither one is okay. They are both sinful, wrong and unfair to the child.

 

[edwest]

That is part of the issue. Some simply say ‘I don’t believe this or that.’ Which they are free to do, but this is a Catholic forum so Catholic teaching should be promoted.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

That is a bit nutty, you dont seem to understand the expression.

I understand the expression a lot, I used to work with horses and just thought I would complete the word picture, meaning sometimes you have to correct the situation.

When are members going to learn that in a moral theology forum one needs to do more than just vent a personal opinion about what is sin or not sin.

To deserve a response or gain credibility or influence others one needs to provide an argument, or even a Magisterial quote.

I think that is a little nutty, since I was responding to your opinion -

Therefore I personally would not apriori rule out the partner in a SS union from adopting his partner’s natural child.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

MR when you have something substantial to say do come back

So in other words it is ok for you to speak your opinion in a post but I can not? Very nice.
My original point was that a child has a right to both a mother and father and you are implying I have nothing substantial to say.
Thank you.

 

[0331]

‘The unsupported views of many who happen to be Catholic’

Do we really need to provide sources, in a Catholic forum, to prove that the two situations you listed above are in fact sin?

 

[Thorolfr]

Cypress1359:

Therefore I personally would not apriori rule out the partner in a SS union from adopting his partner’s natural child.

What about that child having a right to have both a mom and a dad?

In some cases, the birth mother still plays a part in the life of her child along with the father and the father’s same-sex partner or spouse. But what would you suggest that a gay man with a child do? Should he live with a woman just so that his child can have a mother?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Should he live with a woman just so that his child can have a mother?

The Catholic answer would be that the SSA man is to live a chaste life and not live with another man.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

Should he live with a woman just so that his child can have a mother?

The Catholic answer would be that the SSA man is to live a chaste life and not live with another man.

So, the child of this SSA man would be better off living with just the one parent, the father? I would think that living with two loving parents would be better for the child even if they’re both men.

 

[goout]

OK sorry for the long cut and paste, but things won’t make sense without it I fear. You postulate the existence of something called ‘the good’. I am not sure what this is.

I clearly identified that: it is good to be alive.
Why is this hard to understand?

I assume you mean ‘what God intends’. You then ask me if it is good to be alive. Well, it is good for me today. Were I to be a caterpillar doomed to be a living host for a wasp larvae life would be bad for me (but good for the wasp).

You’re not a wasp, you’re a human being. Is there anything exceptional about being human and being alive?

Were I to be paralysed, conscious but unable to communicate and hooked up to machines on which my life depended it would not be good for me to be alive, for m, my family, or the people who needed the health resources I was consuming pointlessly.

Yes people suffer. Still, in humane societies we do not judge the value of human life by one’s demand on resources.

You ask about the ‘one way’ human life happens. Well the one way human life happens is that it is passed on generation to generation.

Uniquely through the union of one man and one woman.

It does not occur at the time of conception.

We can debate that, but it’s somewhat tangential to the point.

Both sperm and ovum are alive. The Church does not teach that this human life is good in the way that mine is. Rather the Church has a concept of ‘individual’ humans, each the creation of God. I do not share that view. Without it all the talk of natural law and ‘ordering’ of human customs and instincts is without meaning. It flows from a premise I do not share. I have no objection to you holding it. But I do not think it reasonable to insist that I should hold it because it is apparent from what we observe. This is a long-stated Christian view, but it is not one I share. To my mind is is almost completely refuted in a positive sense by the absence of atheists who accept ‘natural law’ when it comes to the ‘ordering to the good’ of human sexuality.

You’re going waaay out of your way to deny the undeniable. Why would you take a position that amounts to superstition and is completely oblivious of reality?

The union of a man and woman is the one unique way that human beings exist.

And if you can’t admit that it is good to be born and be alive, I feel sad for you.

 

[0331]

No, absolutely not, I don’t think that at all. Neither one is okay. They are both sinful, wrong and unfair to the child.

MagdalenaRita said the above in response to this:

Two life-long committed parents (regardless of sex) can be better than one with a string of heterosexual (or SS) lovers don’t you think?

The above two situations suggests that having two same-sex parents is better than having one promiscuous parent. Right?

To which MagdalenaRita asserted that both situations are sinful.

How is what MagdalenaRita said—that a same-sex relationship and a promiscuous relationship of any kind are both sinful—not Catholic?

 

[Thorolfr]

Having sexual relations with someone that go against the natural law, the natural ways our body works, can cause physical and psychological harm. When you truly love someone you want their good, not harm.

We also do not know yet what the consequences will be on children who are raised in same sex marriages, that deprive children from one of their parents. I wonder how many children after growing up will go on a search to find the parent they never knew.

I don’t see why having gay sex would “cause physical and psychological harm.” For gay people, it seems perfectly natural and normal. I’ve been in a relationship with my partner for more than 20 years and neither one of us has suffered any physical or psychological harm as a result. I’d be much worse off if I had been alone all those years.

 

[Thorolfr]

Were I to be paralysed, conscious but unable to communicate and hooked up to machines on which my life depended it would not be good for me to be alive, for m, my family, or the people who needed the health resources I was consuming pointlessly.

If someone is suffering too much, they might not think that it’s good to be alive. That’s why people with terminal illnesses or who are in unbearable pain are often glad to die. And that’s why some of them commit suicide.

 

[MikeInVA]

It is uncharitable and presumptuous to label those in irregular situations as “sinful” simply because the situations are disordered.

Sex outside of marriage is sinful, is it not?