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

[GospelOfMatthew]

But I think someone who is chaste and single has more availability in their time and schedule to have multiple in-depth friendships. It is not a guarantee. But I think we should promote the connection and love those who struggle with this can have in friendships

 

[edwest]

Yes, certain reasonable precautions need to be taken before surgery. As far as the other person’s family, that goes on a case by case basis.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Meh, I don’t think people are so busy that it’s time that’s a limiting factor to forming in-depth friendships.

100% agree that love is the correct response to people struggling with a difficulty in their life, especially something like SSA which carries such strong social stigma.

 

[goout]

goout:

Not good for anyone to be alone. We are made for relationship.

I agree. And I’ve been much better off being in a relationship with my same-sex partner for the last 20 years than being alone. In fact, I don’t think that I could live alone.

No one wants to live alone for sure.

 

[Thorolfr]

Yes, certain reasonable precautions need to be taken before surgery. As far as the other person’s family, that goes on a case by case basis.

So, would there be any legitimate reason to allow a gay man’s brother to see him before surgery or if he was unconscious but not allow his same-sex partner? Gay people were frequently denied access in hospitals at one time, especially in more conservative parts of the country.

 

[edwest]

That would require legal advice and a knowledge of a hospital’s policies.

 

[GospelOfMatthew]

Meh, I don’t think people are so busy that it’s time that’s a limiting factor to forming in-depth friendships.

I would say having a family and children and a spouse is a lot of time consuming things, of course enjoyable things but also time consuming

 

[Thorolfr]

That would require legal advice and a knowledge of a hospital’s policies.

But you just said above, “Oh please. Anybody can see anybody in a hospital.” Would a man’s wife need legal advice and knowledge of a hospital’s policies to know if she could see her husband in the hospital? So why should a gay man need legal advice to find out if he can see the partner that he lives with.

 

[Dakota111]

I also do not know why society ought to be shouted down for daring to recognize that mothers and fathers are not interchangeable a

So you would oppose the following “family” units as too disordered for an adopted child? : a single grandfather and his abandoned granddaughter, remarried mum and stepdad with daughter, never married (10 years) couple with 2 children already, two elderly aunts and their grandchild.

Yes we all agree with the ideal, but huge percentages of the worlds family units are not actually ideal and the Church has no problem with that when children without adequate parental care need a home and many of these irregular family units do work and can be assessed as likely to work. Orphanages not so much.

In fact the Church recognises it can be so good that active irregular remarried couples technically committing adultery can even be tolerated for the sake of such needy children.

Its a no brainer…the Church’s opposition at present to SSU is not one of natural law but of moral prudential judgement. It could change…personally I see it as inevitable.

The Church has followed exactly the same trajectory re decriminalisation of fornication, adultery, divorce, sodomy etc in re cent centuries. It often opposes Civil law change, then eventually goes quiet when a nations majority (including largish numbers of Catholics) leaves the hierachy behind on moral issues.

 

[Dakota111]

So do monks. (And please do not try to tell us that people committed to their religious communities do not have true intimacy between them that deserves to be regarded as the equal of that between homosexuals because those committed to monastic life are not having sex with each other…)

I would say you have never lived seriously in a monastic community to assert such idealistic notions
So yes, I will try and tell you exactly that

 

[PetraG]

There are even straight married couples who have conceived children who have more emotional intimacy with their pets than what they do with their spouses…

I’m not the one arguing that depth of emotion is what makes marriage different from other kinds of adult relationships. That is not what the Church teaches. Why would it be? It is not as if feelings are ours to manufacture at will, are they? If marriage were based on feelings, then when the feelings were gone, the marriage would be over.

Oh, wait, that is the definition that secular society decided to go with. How’s that working out? In the best interest of society? Why, no it isn’t.

It seems to me that if marriage is so personal that what is good for society or what society thinks should not matter, maybe it shouldn’t be an institution that society ought to be making some particular effort to encourage.

 

[Cimachol]

There is no such thing as Homosexual Marriage; Marriage is a Catholic Sacrament.

Not to split hairs, but there are non-sacramental marriages that are morally licit and still fit the definition of marriage – for example, a marriage between a non-Christian man and a non-Christian woman. But I agree that anything that does not involve a permanent, exclusive commitment between a man and a woman is not a marriage.

 

[PetraG]

I would say you have never lived seriously in a monastic community to assert such idealistic notions
So yes, I will try and tell you exactly that

I see. So someone who joins a religious community should put less trust in the love and concern of the rest of the community than any two people who commit to a sexual relationship, because it is idealistic to think that non-sexual relationships can approach that sort of depth? Is that what you’re trying to say? People who don’t have sex with each other can’t really care for each other like people who have sex, not in a way that has anything to do with the best interests of society, so they shouldn’t be given the societal advantages that people who do have sex with each other are given?

 

[PetraG]

Not good for anyone to be alone. We are made for relationship.

OK, so now you’re arguing that priests shouldn’t allowed to be celibate, because if they commit to a life without marriage they can’t have a “relationship,” and that isn’t good.

 

[Thorolfr]

A lot of people here in CAF seem to think that “feelings” or “emotions” are unimportant or even bad. But I think that love in a committed relationship or marriage is important and that a loveless marriage would’t be good either for the spouses or for their children if they had any. Someone is probably going to claim that love is not an emotion, but I’d have to disagree. Fortunately, I’m just as in love with my partner now as what I was more than 20 years ago when we met. So I know that those feelings don’t have to end in a relationship or marriage.

 

[goout]

Did I make that argument?

 

[goout]

A lot of people here in CAF seem to think that “feelings” or “emotions” are unimportant or even bad. But I think that love in a committed relationship or marriage is important and that a loveless marriage would’t be good either for the spouses or for their children if they had any. Someone is probably going to claim that love is not an emotion, but I’d have to disagree. Fortunately, I’m just as in love with my partner now as what I was more than 20 years ago when we met. So I know that those feelings don’t have to end in a relationship or marriage.

Love is not a feeling. That’s not a claim or an assertion, it’s an observation of what love is.
Love is to will the good of another, for the sake of the other. It is a total gift of self, which may include positive and warm feelings of affection, or it may not include those feelings.
Anyone who’s been in a committed relationship should know that lovers can be angry with one another, and still be “in love”.

Feelings and passions are good in themselves. They are part of what being human. They do not serve love when they are disordered.
For instance, if one “loves” another for the desired end of attaining good feelings, that relationship is built on sand. We don’t love others for the sake of good feelings, they come with the deeper elements of commitment.

 

[MikeInVA]

So you would oppose the following “family” units as too disordered for an adopted child? : a single grandfather and his abandoned granddaughter, remarried mum and stepdad with daughter, never married (10 years) couple with 2 children already, two elderly aunts and their grandchild.

You are arguing by exception. Rules and laws are designed to address everyone, with exceptions for exceptional circumstances. It’s like saying that since ambulances and police cars can exceed the speed limit then there should be no speed limit since not every car has to obey it.

 

[Pattylt]

Perhaps I’m confusing these posts…quite likely!

I’ve been following this thread for several days and what I’m trying to sort out is the following…

Are some of you saying that the Catholic Church should accept SSU?
As a secularist I have no desire to see the Church change it’s stance on marriage. It believes a marriage union is only between two people of the opposite sex. I’m fine with their definition for themselves.

Are some of you arguing that SSU should not be allowed for secular society either?
I do have a problem with this as religions have every right to define their own beliefs and policies within their institutions but do not have the right to define their policies for all of secular society. I realize that you think it is wrong,disordered and against what your beliefs are but you don’t have the right to define it for the non religious or other religions. Of course, you have every right to make your views heard and understood but if secular society decides against it, you will need to live in this society as best as you can.

I believe France has a separation of legal marriage and religious marriage. While I understand most people wouldn’t want to go through two ceremonies, I think it is an excellent division. Religions can continue to call their marriages sacraments and legal marriages can be understood to be civil or legal ones. Part of the problem in the US is that both take place at the same time in churches and confuses the separate definitions that religious people want. Churches can each decide whether they will recognize a civil marriage as binding within their church and secular society would most likely accept either type as legally binding.

Sorry this was long but I wanted to get some clarification on whether some of you are arguing with regards to the Church or all of society in general.

Please know, I understand your PREFERENCE for society but that’s a done deal…are you still arguing that or only the Church. Sorry I’m a bit dense on this.

 

[PetraG]

A lot of people here in CAF seem to think that “feelings” or “emotions” are unimportant or even bad. But I think that love in a committed relationship or marriage is important and that a loveless marriage would’t be good either for the spouses or for their children if they had any. Someone is probably going to claim that love is not an emotion, but I’d have to disagree. Fortunately, I’m just as in love with my partner now as what I was more than 20 years ago when we met. So I know that those feelings don’t have to end in a relationship or marriage.

Feelings that come and go are not a basis for public policy decisions.
At CAF, we’re very clear on the difference between a house where there is sex and a house where there is love.
If sex were required for a loving and faithful home, that would leave out the Holy Family as the model.
Our society would be better off if marriages weren’t immediately imperiled the moment that a couple cannot say “I’m just as in love with my partner now as what I was…”