When Homosexuals love eachother

  • Thread starter Thread starter jesusalright4me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jesusalright4me

Guest
Hi guys! Now as an avid listener of Catholic Radio, I’ve heard some good responses to this topic many times, but it never hurts to be reminded again.

In a long discussion with a few of my friends the other day (one agnostic, one a sort of cafeteria Catholic, and one a protestant who didn’t say all that much), they asked me why I don’t think homosexual acts are moral. I explained, to the best of my ability, that I believe God created sex to be done within marriage, that you can see this in the way we are designed (the pieces “fit” lol), and that it is to be a reflection of love so great that another human being can come out of it.

Now, later on in the conversation, the cafeteria Catholic mentioned that he thinks homosexual marriage is fine, that he knows a lot of homosexual couples that are just as in love and just as happy as he is in their relationships. Unfortunetely, we were all throwing out so many beliefs that I didn’t get a chance to object to that.

This is a common objection to the Church’s teachings on sex, so how would one refute it? Keep in mind, an agnostic was present, so if I would have said anything, I probably might have referred to natural law stuff to the best of my ability rather than the Bible.
 
You got to keep in mind that same sex marriage is an attack on the family and life. How does a same sex couple have children? They have to go outside the marriage and adopt someone elses child, or they may resort to IVF or a surrogate mother. Now how that affects family is that the couple right from the start denies a child the right to have a natural mother and father… This would have the be the norm for a same-sex marriage for obvious reasons. So is it fair to the child who has no say in this? This is not how God works and to have to go ‘outside of the marriage bed’ with IVF or surrogacy is man playing god with peoples lives and those unnatural methods of producing human life cause human embryos get aborted or frozen for who knows how long. God planned for a man and a woman to be married and ‘the fruit’ of their union of their hearts are their children. . But apart from God in this, it’s unfair to the children to be denied a natural parent because of the same-sex union. Nothing happens in life that doesn’t affect someone else… This is why our actions matter. The fruit of Gods love is us… So the fruit of a man and womans love are babies… We are made in Gods image in likeness meant to produce offspring the natural way…
 
Karen107 said:
…it’s unfair to the children to be denied a natural parent because of the same-sex union.
Click to expand...
That’s not an argument that makes sense. You say:

‘It is wrong for a child not to have a natural parent.’

So I ask why it is wrong and you say:

‘Because of the same-sex union’.

That’s not a reason. It’s an explanation. Just as it would be if you said the man or woman was divorced, a widow(er), separated or a single parent.

If it’s unfair for a child to be denied a natural parent, then the explanation as to how that has come about is relevant to how that child has found itself in that position but it has zero relevance as to the rightness or wrongness of the position.

If it’s wrong, or unfair, then you have to include all other reasons for it occurring. It would be unfair for the man or woman not to re-marry or not to get married in the first place.

If you are so concerned with children who don’t have a male or a female parent then please let me know how you exhibit this concern.
 
Bradski said:
That’s not an argument that makes sense. You say:

‘It is wrong for a child not to have a natural parent.’

So I ask why it is wrong and you say:

‘Because of the same-sex union’.

That’s not a reason. It’s an explanation. Just as it would be if you said the man or woman was divorced, a widow(er), separated or a single parent.

If it’s unfair for a child to be denied a natural parent, then the explanation as to how that has come about is relevant to how that child has found itself in that position but it has zero relevance as to the rightness or wrongness of the position.

If it’s wrong, or unfair, then you have to include all other reasons for it occurring. It would be unfair for the man or woman not to re-marry or not to get married in the first place.

If you are so concerned with children who don’t have a male or a female parent then please let me know how you exhibit this concern.
Click to expand...
She just did: by advocating for the absolute best arrangement for children: true marriage.
 
jesusalright4me said:
Hi guys! Now as an avid listener of Catholic Radio, I’ve heard some good responses to this topic many times, but it never hurts to be reminded again.

In a long discussion with a few of my friends the other day (one agnostic, one a sort of cafeteria Catholic, and one a protestant who didn’t say all that much), they asked me why I don’t think homosexual acts are moral. I explained, to the best of my ability, that I believe God created sex to be done within marriage, that you can see this in the way we are designed (the pieces “fit” lol), and that it is to be a reflection of love so great that another human being can come out of it.

Now, later on in the conversation, the cafeteria Catholic mentioned that he thinks homosexual marriage is fine, that he knows a lot of homosexual couples that are just as in love and just as happy as he is in their relationships. Unfortunetely, we were all throwing out so many beliefs that I didn’t get a chance to object to that.

This is a common objection to the Church’s teachings on sex, so how would one refute it? Keep in mind, an agnostic was present, so if I would have said anything, I probably might have referred to natural law stuff to the best of my ability rather than the Bible.
Click to expand...
I have a sort of “flowchart” that I go by: If somebody is a Christian, I focus on what they think God’s will is for how we should behave. If I’m talking to somebody without faith, I usually focus on the falseness of equating homosexual partnerships to husband-wife marriage, since anybody can see just from an observable reality point of view, that 2 men are not the same as a man-woman relationship. The sex differences are significant and make significantly different consequences.

I had a similar conversation with a middle-aged guy whose brother is gay. I agreed with him that homosexuals can love each other. They’re human beings, so there’s no question that they can love on a human level just like anybody else. The point I made, though, is that to call 2 men the same as a husband-wife marriage, using the same nomenclature, is false because you’re equating 2 different things and saying we should pretend they’re the same or be forced to treat them identically, even though they are not the same type of relationship.

It might not end up “converting” them, but it gives them something to think about. And I have never met anybody who will not at least grant me that a same-sex relationship is not the exact same thing as a husband-wife relationship.

I try not to be arrogant or pedantic, but I also try hard not to be intimidated. I try to keepit simple and be confident in my beliefs. That alone can make a good witness. The Church’s teaching on marriage, like all of Her moral teachings, does indeed make sense. It makes more sense if you believe there is a God, of course. But even the atheist can usually see some rational coherence to moral teachings, IF they are truly open to seeing it.

I have also learned, though, that if somebody doesn’t WANT to believe something, there is nothing you can say that will force him to believe it, no matter how carefully or reasonably you make your case.

So just take your best shot, explain it in a way that you think makes sense, and ask God to let it percolate in their brain. 👍
 
These type discussions generally go nowhere and you will feel like you are on the losing side every time, especially if you are talking with people that are not fully committed to God and the teachings of the bible backed up by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

If you are a committed Roman Catholic and follow the teachings of the church all you really have to say is that your views on homosexuality are informed by your faith. Then, you can present a summary of CCC 2357-2359 as your reasons for determining that homosexual acts are immoral. These paragraphs in the CCC are in the section devoted to adultery.

In the matter of marriage you can again refer to the CCC. Review the Sacrament of Matrimony CCC 1601-1666 and the sixth commandment ( Thou shalt not commit adultery.) CCC 2331-2400.

Peace be with you.
 
There is no love outside of nature. It would be a paradox.

Just throw that objective truth at them and then forget about it.
 
Blue_Goose said:
These type discussions generally go nowhere and you will feel like you are on the losing side every time, especially if you are talking with people that are not fully committed to God and the teachings of the bible backed up by the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

If you are a committed Roman Catholic and follow the teachings of the church all you really have to say is that your views on homosexuality are informed by your faith. Then, you can present a summary of CCC 2357-2359 as your reasons for determining that homosexual acts are immoral. These paragraphs in the CCC are in the section devoted to adultery.

In the matter of marriage you can again refer to the CCC. Review the Sacrament of Matrimony CCC 1601-1666 and the sixth commandment ( Thou shalt not commit adultery.) CCC 2331-2400.

Peace be with you.
Click to expand...
It’s true my views on same sex unions are informed by my faith. But they are primarily informed by human anatomy, biology, and anthropology, which predate religion. In other words, the reality of two sexual complementary sexes is pretty basic, and was understood quite well from the dawn of human civilization.
 
Pat_M said:
I have a sort of “flowchart” that I go by: If somebody is a Christian, I focus on what they think God’s will is for how we should behave. If I’m talking to somebody without faith, I usually focus on the falseness of equating homosexual partnerships to husband-wife marriage, since anybody can see just from an observable reality point of view, that 2 men are not the same as a man-woman relationship. The sex differences are significant and make significantly different consequences.

I had a similar conversation with a middle-aged guy whose brother is gay. I agreed with him that homosexuals can love each other. They’re human beings, so there’s no question that they can love on a human level just like anybody else. The point I made, though, is that to call 2 men the same as a husband-wife marriage, using the same nomenclature, is false because you’re equating 2 different things and saying we should pretend they’re the same or be forced to treat them identically, even though they are not the same type of relationship.

It might not end up “converting” them, but it gives them something to think about. And I have never met anybody who will not at least grant me that a same-sex relationship is not the exact same thing as a husband-wife relationship.

I try not to be arrogant or pedantic, but I also try hard not to be intimidated. I try to keepit simple and be confident in my beliefs. That alone can make a good witness. The Church’s teaching on marriage, like all of Her moral teachings, does indeed make sense. It makes more sense if you believe there is a God, of course. But even the atheist can usually see some rational coherence to moral teachings, IF they are truly open to seeing it.

I have also learned, though, that if somebody doesn’t WANT to believe something, there is nothing you can say that will force him to believe it, no matter how carefully or reasonably you make your case.

So just take your best shot, explain it in a way that you think makes sense, and ask God to let it percolate in their brain. 👍
Click to expand...
Karen107, I definitely agree with what you say. Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!

I would add some of my own thoughts. One of the guys said that homosexuality occurs in nature, and that therefore it is fine and natural to perform in ways like that because it is a part of our instinct to do so, to which I responded that that instinct is there for one reason, to secure the survival of the species, and that even though you may see animals acting like that, that sexual desire is there for that reason, even though it may be misdirected for some reason (eg no mates around, etc). Also, I said that man has the ability rise above his primal instincts and use sex for it’s true purposes.

I was actually going to bring up that every culture throughout history has always recognized marriage as between at least one man and at least one woman. And I definitely agree on your tips on having an open minded peaceful discussion. In fact, at the end of it, one of the friends thanked me for being so humble and open minded to his disagreements. He told me most Catholics/Christians he has met were arrogant and couldn’t admit when they just didn’t know the answer to something, and he said it was refreshing to have an open minded discussion. I tried to defend my faith peacefully without being relativistic, and in the end we all had a great discussion. So I think the Holy Spirit worked through the conversation in the end no matter what 🙂
 
Pat_M said:
She just did: by advocating for the absolute best arrangement for children: true marriage.
Click to expand...
The argument being made was that it was wrong for a child not to have both a mother and a father. Then a reason was given why that might occur. But it doesn’t make it less wrong or more wrong depending on the explanation given for that scenario. It has to be wrong in itself.

But what Karen is not doing is saying that it is wrong in itself. She is saying that it is wrong in a particular circumstance. That is, it is wrong IF the reason is that both parents are the same gender. She is not actually saying that it is wrong for a child to have just the one parent, because that scenario occurs in many different ways and I see no evidence that Karen has equal concern about them. She is actually saying that it is wrong for a child to have two parents of the same gender.

Now simply and blandly stating that ‘anyone can see that that is wrong’ ain’t good enough. If you think something is wrong then you need good reasons for believing it to be so. If you have none, or you do and they are not accepted, then your arguments carry no weight.
 
Bradski said:
The argument being made was that it was wrong for a child not to have both a mother and a father. Then a reason was given why that might occur. But it doesn’t make it less wrong or more wrong depending on the explanation given for that scenario. It has to be wrong in itself.

But what Karen is not doing is saying that it is wrong in itself. She is saying that it is wrong in a particular circumstance. That is, it is wrong IF the reason is that both parents are the same gender. She is not actually saying that it is wrong for a child to have just the one parent, because that scenario occurs in many different ways and I see no evidence that Karen has equal concern about them. She is actually saying that it is wrong for a child to have two parents of the same gender.

Now simply and blandly stating that ‘anyone can see that that is wrong’ ain’t good enough. If you think something is wrong then you need good reasons for believing it to be so. If you have none, or you do and they are not accepted, then your arguments carry no weight.
Click to expand...
I think much of your argument is based of your definition of marriage in which procreation isn’t mandatory. Most atheists from what I’ve heard have said procreation isn’t a requirement or a “must” for marriage. One of the main reasons Catholics disagree with gay marriage is because it is not procreative.

I think the problem here is you don’t think procreation is not necessary for a marriage then
I think we need to discuss about what marriage is and the purpose of it is.
 
The Church teaches, as I understand it, the Marriage is Sacremantal, between one man and one woman , the purpose of which is to be open to procreation. If individuals do not agree with the teachings of the Church, including but not limited to artificial contraception (medical necessity not withstanding), sexual relations out side of Marriage, and abortion perhaps they should attend another church. There are churches that recognize same sex marriages, and welcome people living openly same sex relationships. As for love, there are devout Roman Catholic individuals that have same sex attraction that opt to live celebant lifestyles as do single individuals of opposite sex attraction. I have read that the upcoming synod, please correct me if I’m wrong, there is some thought being given to changng the wording like…intrinsically disordered abherent behavior…I pray that this doesn’t come to pass…and I am confused as to what is meant by some ‘contribuions’ or ‘good’ that the homosexual community brings to the Church. Bottom line…it takes more than love to make intrinsically disordered abherent behavior ‘right’.in the eyes of the church.
 
Bradski said:
The argument being made was that it was wrong for a child not to have both a mother and a father. Then a reason was given why that might occur. But it doesn’t make it less wrong or more wrong depending on the explanation given for that scenario. It has to be wrong in itself.

But what Karen is not doing is saying that it is wrong in itself. She is saying that it is wrong in a particular circumstance. That is, it is wrong IF the reason is that both parents are the same gender. She is not actually saying that it is wrong for a child to have just the one parent, because that scenario occurs in many different ways and I see no evidence that Karen has equal concern about them. She is actually saying that it is wrong for a child to have two parents of the same gender.

Now simply and blandly stating that ‘anyone can see that that is wrong’ ain’t good enough. If you think something is wrong then you need good reasons for believing it to be so. If you have none, or you do and they are not accepted, then your arguments carry no weight.
Click to expand...
Pretending homosexual partnerships are the same as marriage is wrong for many reasons. One of those reasons is what Karen mentioned, that it is not fair to deny a child a mother or father.

Your objection seems to be that she did not also point out every other possible situation where a child is denied access to one of his parents. I have seen others use this line of reasoning to defend homosexuality too but I do not really think it makes sense. I think it’s an attempt to excuse one sin by essentially saying “everybody else is sinning too”. Other scenarios may be wrong as well, but just because other scenarios are also wrong, it does not logically follow that it is therefore ok for homosexuals to do wrong too.
 
Is it better for a child to grow up without parents, or with two parents of the same gender?
 
AyJSimon said:
Is it better for a child to grow up without parents, or with two parents of the same gender?
Click to expand...
Is it better to have your legs chopped off, or your arms chopped off?

You can get along fine with a wheelchair, and that way you could still play the piano. So get your legs chopped off.

Of course, neither situation is very good, is it?
 
WilliamOK said:
Is it better to have your legs chopped off, or your arms chopped off?

You can get along fine with a wheelchair, and that way you could still play the piano. So get your legs chopped off.

Of course, neither situation is very good, is it?
Click to expand...
I was asking if one is better than the other. If you think that a child growing up without any parental figures is better than if that child grew up in a loving home with same-sex parents, then you should just say so. But folks here seem strangely reticent on this point. But it’s very much implied whenever they argue that “it’s not fair to deprive a child of having opposite sex parents.” Even with gay couples being able to legally adopt, many children in need of homes don’t get them. If gay couple couldn’t legally adopt, that number would necessarily increase. I get the feeling many folks would consider this a better outcome than what we’re dealing with now.
 
Catholic adoption agencies will not place children with same sex couples. In fact, Catholic adoption agencies have closed their doors rather than do so, when states have passed laws requiring them to place children with same sex couples. Their view is that to place a child into such a deviant living situation would be a serious disservice to the child and cannot be done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top