When Homosexuals love eachother

[Rubia]

It is false to say that love is of secondary importance in marriage. That is another religion. Catholic religion teaches there can be NO marriage without love. None. What do people suppose that “unitive” means? Why do they think the marriage vow and proper intent are so important? Or they think rape is same as sex? What is not necessary in marriage are FEELINGS. But love is paramount! What in God’s name are they teaching catholic children in catechism class these days???

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Do you also think that freeze plugs are plugs that freeze things? Deconstructing a phrase doesn’t always work.

Depends on what plugs you are referring to. Core plugs? Expansion Plugs? Welch plugs? or Spark plugs.

I agree that deconstructing a phrase doesn’t always work. However in my case it works very well and proves an important point.

 

[JimG]

It is false to say that love is of secondary importance in marriage. That is another religion. Catholic religion teaches there can be NO marriage without love. None. What do people suppose that “unitive” means? Why do they think the marriage vow and proper intent are so important? Or they think rape is same as sex? What is not necessary in marriage are FEELINGS. But love is paramount! What in God’s name are they teaching catholic children in catechism class these days???

I pretty much agree with you, with perhaps a few quibbles. “Unitive” can have several meanings, but with respect to marriage it primarily refers to the marital act between husband and wife. The act is unitive because the two are physically united in a marital act which is in itself both unitive and procreative. The couple is physically united, and the act itself is by its nature oriented to procreation.

Unitive also refers to psychological bonding—the marital bond between husband and wife that can only be broken by death. And yes, marital love is important. It is not always the same as erotic love, since one does not go through a marriage seeking marital intercourse at every moment. But one can and does constantly seek the good of the spouse. It is a sacrificial love wherein one puts the good of the spouse ahead of the good of self.

 

[JimmyG88]

There was mistreatment and it no doubt has influenced the response.

There are jurisdictions around the world where defacto couples (including same sex) were in fact afforded substantially equivalent rights and entitlements as married couples. That did not eliminate the call for “marriage equality” though I can’t say whether it diminished it or not.

And many jurisdictions that behead them. I think that the dominant normative culture is suffering having to adapt to a back lash in the form of a demand for complete equality

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Depends on what plugs you are referring to. Core plugs? Expansion Plugs? Welch plugs? or Spark plugs.

I agree that deconstructing a phrase doesn’t always work. However in my case it works very well and proves an important point.

I deliberately chose a phrase that was ambiguous because the phrase sexual orientation when deconstructed is ambiguous.

It is false to say that love is of secondary importance in marriage. That is another religion. Catholic religion teaches there can be NO marriage without love. None. What do people suppose that “unitive” means? Why do they think the marriage vow and proper intent are so important? Or they think rape is same as sex? What is not necessary in marriage are FEELINGS. But love is paramount! What in God’s name are they teaching catholic children in catechism class these days???

According to St. Thomas Aquinas the teleological end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their offspring.

Love is of secondary importance in marriage for the same reason the unitive aspect of conjugal intercourse is of secondary importance, for both love and the unitive aspect of sex exist to serve the primary purpose, they are there so assist in the duties of the husband and wife, so they may be better capable of the rearing of offspring.
Deus Caritas Est:

Nowadays Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed. Yet the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man’s great “yes” to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as a mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness. Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility. True, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing.

source
I am railing against the debased form of eros that Pope Benedict discusses which in modern society passes itself off as “love”.

To say that love is paramount is to say that the unitive aspect of conjugal intercourse is more important than the procreative aspect of conjugal, do you really believe that?

 

[on_the_hill]

It is important in the same way that antifreeze is important in Puerto Rico.

Do you also think that freeze plugs are plugs that freeze things? Deconstructing a phrase doesn’t always work.

Um…what’s a freeze plug?

 

[epan]

Just to state the obvious, since it pertains to one of the arguments used in this thread. We have changed many of our moral views, quite recently in history. I don’t think that anyone here would argue for slavery, the place of women, the moral authority of a monarch… in the same way that someone who lived 100, 200 or 300 years ago.

The argument that something must be good because it has persisted is not a very good one, when you consider the other behaviors and laws that it has been used to defend.

 

[Rubia]

I pretty much agree with you, with perhaps a few quibbles. “Unitive” can have several meanings, but with respect to marriage it primarily refers to the marital act between husband and wife. The act is unitive because the two are physically united in a marital act which is in itself both unitive and procreative. The couple is physically united, and the act itself is by its nature oriented to procreation.

Unitive also refers to psychological bonding—the marital bond between husband and wife that can only be broken by death. And yes, marital love is important. It is not always the same as erotic love, since one does not go through a marriage seeking marital intercourse at every moment. But one can and does constantly seek the good of the spouse. It is a sacrificial love wherein one puts the good of the spouse ahead of the good of self.

The church teaches that marital rape is not unitive. This means that unitive refers to more than the physical act itself, which rape fulfills. Marriage is a donation of the whole person to the other and a receiving of the whole of the other person without rejecting any part. That’s why contraception is evil: it says “I love you, but…” Which contradicts the act of true self giving to the other or true self acceptance. Which is love.

 

[Rubia]

I deliberately chose a phrase that was ambiguous because the phrase sexual orientation when deconstructed is ambiguous.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas the teleological end of matrimony is the begetting and upbringing of children: the first of which is attained by conjugal intercourse; the second by the other duties of husband and wife, by which they help one another in rearing their offspring.

Conjugal intercourse without love is not unitive. Your problem is you are making two errors:

One, assuming that love means feelings as opposed to a disposition of the will. Truth is the latter, the first is only an aid to love (makes it easier for the will to love) but not love itself. If it is absent, love is possible though not pleasant for the person doing the loving. Anyone who has gone through dry periods of prayer can attest. If you give yourself without feeling anything, you are in fact loving much more truly, purely, unselfishly than when you are doing it from feelings. A person who genuinely gives themselves to the other in the consent of marriage is loving. If he has no feeling but nonetheless gives themselves, he is loving much more truly as he is not doing it out of self interest but making a sacrifice. There for, love is paramount in any marriage and without it there is no marriage. The church says this clearly when it teaches that marriage is ministered by the couples themselves and not by the church and when it investigates consent in anullment proceedings. In so doing, the church makes true love the primary factor of marriage.

Two, you are artificially setting up procreative and unitive against each other. Marriage covenant renewal (sex) must be BOTH. If it lacked either it would not be marriage or sex. That’s why true consent, which is an act of love in the will, is absolutely paramount. Without it, there is no marriage to speak of. Sex alone does not a marriage make. That’s why we distinguish comittmentless sex (fornication) from committed (marriage!). There is no way to have one without the other.

Love is of secondary importance in marriage for the same reason the unitive aspect of conjugal intercourse is of secondary importance, for both love and the unitive aspect of sex exist to serve the primary purpose, they are there so assist in the duties of the husband and wife, so they may be better capable of the rearing of offspring.

This is just NOT TRUE. Humanae Vitae teaches that both unitive and procreative are paramount. They cannoit be split and set up in competition as both are necessary and neither is optional. It would be of secondary importance only if it was optional or only if you could have a marriage or licit intercourse without it. You cannot. Pope st John Paul II taught that both are important. Without the love in the will, without the self giving of the will in the form of consent, the marriage is invalid and the sex is rape. Neither make a marriage covenant or a renewal of the marriage covenant in sex as the will comes before the act which makes it the basis for everything. Put differently, you appear to forget that marriage is a covenant. What you suggest is that it is possible to make a binding covenant without the will to fulfill it.

source
I am railing against the debased form of eros that Pope Benedict discusses which in modern society passes itself off as “love”.

To say that love is paramount is to say that the unitive aspect of conjugal intercourse is more important than the procreative aspect of conjugal, do you really believe that?

I believe the church and the church teaches we must have both.

Besides, we have marriages between couples who have given themselves to each other in their wills but who don’t engage in the physical act of procreation. Josephite. Mary and Joseph. We don’t have any valid marriages where couples procreate without having given themselves to each other, however.

Both are paramount.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Conjugal intercourse without love is not unitive. Your problem is you are making two errors:

One, assuming that love means feelings as opposed to a disposition of the will. Truth is the latter, the first is only an aid to love (makes it easier for the will to love) but not love itself. If it is absent, love is possible though not pleasant for the person doing the loving. Anyone who has gone through dry periods of prayer can attest. If you give yourself without feeling anything, you are in fact loving much more truly, purely, unselfishly than when you are doing it from feelings. A person who genuinely gives themselves to the other in the consent of marriage is loving. If he has no feeling but nonetheless gives themselves, he is loving much more truly as he is not doing it out of self interest but making a sacrifice. There for, love is paramount in any marriage and without it there is no marriage. The church says this clearly when it teaches that marriage is ministered by the couples themselves and not by the church and when it investigates consent in anullment proceedings. In so doing, the church makes true love the primary factor of marriage.

In society today love means feelings, not a disposition of the will. I agree that agape love is vital to marriage, I do not agree that “I wuve him” type of feelings is vital to marriage,

Two, you are artificially setting up procreative and unitive against each other. Marriage covenant renewal (sex) must be BOTH. If it lacked either it would not be marriage or sex. That’s why true consent, which is an act of love in the will, is absolutely paramount. Without it, there is no marriage to speak of. Sex alone does not a marriage make. That’s why we distinguish comittmentless sex (fornication) from committed (marriage!). There is no way to have one without the other.

Right, sex alone does not a marriage make, marriage also requires a common commitment to new life and the rearing of it.

This is just NOT TRUE. Humanae Vitae teaches that both unitive and procreative are paramount. They cannoit be split and set up in competition as both are necessary and neither is optional. It would be of secondary importance only if it was optional or only if you could have a marriage or licit intercourse without it. You cannot. Pope st John Paul II taught that both are important. Without the love in the will, without the self giving of the will in the form of consent, the marriage is invalid and the sex is rape. Neither make a marriage covenant or a renewal of the marriage covenant in sex as the will comes before the act which makes it the basis for everything. Put differently, you appear to forget that marriage is a covenant. What you suggest is that it is possible to make a binding covenant without the will to fulfill it.

The procreative and unitive aspects of conjugal relations are both essential to it being morally licit, but the procreative aspect is the teleological end of sex as so is more important.

I do not suggest that which you accuse me of, I think it is possible to make a binding covenant without being infatuate much the same way I believe you can sign a binding contract without being drunk.

I believe the church and the church teaches we must have both.

Besides, we have marriages between couples who have given themselves to each other in their wills but who don’t engage in the physical act of procreation. Josephite. Mary and Joseph. We don’t have any valid marriages where couples procreate without having given themselves to each other, however.

Both are paramount.

Mary and Joseph still raised a child and the teleological end of marriage is the upbringing of children.

As long as you continue to use such abnormal language and talking about normal we are doomed to talk past each other.

 

[JimmyG88]

I look forward to the day when laymen and women are more involved in promulgating the mind of the church on these matters. Celebrate elderly men talking about ‘agape’ and ‘Eros’ doesn’t realky chime with the mind of the masses they are trying to reach

 

[kozlosap]

Just to state the obvious, since it pertains to one of the arguments used in this thread. We have changed many of our moral views, quite recently in history. I don’t think that anyone here would argue for slavery, the place of women, the moral authority of a monarch… in the same way that someone who lived 100, 200 or 300 years ago.

The argument that something must be good because it has persisted is not a very good one, when you consider the other behaviors and laws that it has been used to defend.

Exactly! The world has changed more in the last 150 years than (just as a manner of contrast) it did in the previous 1850 years, or the time of Christ. When people fail to take those changes to mind when answering posts concerning social dogma issues, it never fails to amaze me.

 

[Rau]

Exactly! The world has changed more in the last 150 years than (just as a manner of contrast) it did in the previous 1850 years, or the time of Christ. When people fail to take those changes to mind when answering posts concerning social dogma issues, it never fails to amaze me.

“Social dogma”? What is that?

 

[Sarcelle]

I look forward to the day when laymen and women are more involved in promulgating the mind of the church on these matters. Celebrate elderly men talking about ‘agape’ and ‘Eros’ doesn’t realky chime with the mind of the masses they are trying to reach

As a single person I find this offensive.

Single people, clerical or lay, know about love, agape and Eros, too.

Why shouldn’t we?

 

[kozlosap]

“Social dogma”? What is that?

I mean ABC (ARTIFICIAL BIRTH CONTROL) and gay issues along with the entire kerfuffle concerning annulment.

 

[Rau]

Exactly! The world has changed more in the last 150 years than (just as a manner of contrast) it did in the previous 1850 years, or the time of Christ. When people fail to take those changes to mind when answering posts concerning social dogma issues, it never fails to amaze me.

Does this mean fundamental principles should adapt to the prevailing crowd view? How can we live good lives on that basis? How would we know what good is?

 

[SuperLuigi]

And many jurisdictions that behead them. I think that the dominant normative culture is suffering having to adapt to a back lash in the form of a demand for complete equality

Or they are just annoyed that something that’s marketed as the best thing since sliced bread needs all these extra laws and attention. One would think if it were so good and great that it would all be able to stand on its own merits.

Furthermore, no government can contradict natural law, no matter how many cries for “equality” there are.

 

[epan]

Does this mean fundamental principles should adapt to the prevailing crowd view? How can we live good lives on that basis? How would we know what good is?

Well, there is a consensus which develops over time. I suppose you might call this a, “prevailing crowd view.”

So, yes the prevailing crowd view in the West is that human trafficking, child labor abuses, slavery, subjugation of women, racial persecution, religious persecution… and so on, are all bad. This is a very modern view, and in some sense is crowd sources, in that social upheaval and protest lead us to many of these conclusions.

Christianity has not always been on the right side of history on these issues. There is a balance to these things, and a tipping point. What was once “good” is no longer “good”, and the difference is the prevailing crowd view, as you call it.

A term which others might use is, “social progress”, or the continued expansion of concepts of “social justice.”

Certainly, no institution anywhere, would be so naïve or full of hubris to claim always to have had the right answers to these problems. Nor would any organization with a sense of history claim to know today what will always be “right” in the future. Such a claim would be laughable.

 

[Rau]

Well, there is a consensus which develops over time. I suppose you might call this a, “prevailing crowd view.”

So, yes the prevailing crowd view in the West is that human trafficking, child labor abuses, slavery, subjugation of women, racial persecution, religious persecution… and so on, are all bad. This is a very modern view, and in some sense is crowd sources, in that social upheaval and protest lead us to many of these conclusions.

Christianity has not always been on the right side of history on these issues. There is a balance to these things, and a tipping point. What was once “good” is no longer “good”, and the difference is the prevailing crowd view, as you call it.

A term which others might use is, “social progress”, or the continued expansion of concepts of “social justice.”

Certainly, no institution anywhere, would be so naïve or full of hubris to claim always to have had the right answers to these problems. Nor would any organization with a sense of history claim to know today what will always be “right” in the future. Such a claim would be laughable.

No one claims to always make the right prudential judgement, of to have the right practical solutions to social problems. Do you believe the moral principles taught in the CCC will need to change with the social conscious?

 

[Finite]

I keep reading how “marriage ensures the continuance of civilization”. No. No, it doesn’t. A man and a woman having sex does (or, to get technical, sperm fertilizing an egg does). But let’s just say that marriage in the traditional sense WAS what ensured that humans live on…

…Great. Bob and Lee entering into a Civil Marriage isn’t going to stop that or slow it down. That’s what I don’t understand. I keep reading that “we need traditional marriage to survive”, but the introduction of civil marriage for same-sex couples doesn’t deter or discourage heterosexual couples from getting married and making babies. That’s like saying “we shouldn’t produce electric cars because fuel burning vehicles require gasoline”. A car that is running on fuel can still use fuel!

The fact of the matter is that many of these gay couples are indeed raising children. Pointing out how these children were “made”, or how their parents couldn’t have possibly conceived them naturally is pointless - it doesn’t matter; these children exist, and they are just as precious as any other child. For me, denying a child of having his same-sex parents be legally recognized as a family unit is irresponsible and cruel.

Now, if gay couples (or any couple for that matter) should ever demand that certain churches be required to marry them, I would have a problem. But that’s not happening. No church is being required to change its position, nor should it have to. And I don’t foresee this ever being an issue because there is certainly no shortage of churches willing to marry same-sex couples anyway.

The Catholic Church, by and large, is unaffected by same-sex marriage. Does it receive some public backlash for it? Sure, but the Church has stood firm for ages and continues to endure. Same sex marriage isn’t a threat to it, nor is same sex marriage a threat to “traditional” marriage. Straight people will still get married.

The church may have a certain definition of what “marriage” is, but the US government doesn’t share that definition. The US government simply says “Here’s a marriage certificate and these are the benefits/responsibilities that you accept and agree upon”. It just provides a basic canvas and allows us to use our own interpretation of what marriage is (Catholics have their interpretation, Muslims have theirs, atheists have theirs, and yes, gay couples have theirs). If any couple, gay or straight, bases their marriage on love over procreation, that is their right.

This argument just seems so redundant. Anyone who believes same-sex marriage isn’t going to be federally legalized within the next year, or thinks all of these marriages will somehow be voided and the bans will be re-enacted is in serious denial. Public opinion has tipped to the point of no return (and no, it isn’t likely to shift back in the way that abortion can; these two issues aren’t even remotely related). Twenty years from now, people will simply look back and say “why were we making such a fuss over this?”