Why are Catholics are against Gay couples adopting?

[St_Francis]

Should we then not allow single parents to keep their children? Single people are allowed to adopt, so should we ban that too?

First, no one is talking about anyone’s taking children away from anyone; we are talking about placing vulnerable children in our care in less-than optimal circumstances.

You are taking a correlation and implying that it is causation. That is not true. While it is true that a stable mother/father home is known to be better than single or divorced parenting, I don’t think it’s been established (not in this thread at least) that it’s the fact that it’s a single parent that causes the trouble. Isn’t it just as likely that it’s the relative emotional immaturity or damage of the single parent that causes it, instead of the lack of a father/mother? It could be the greater stress placed on the parent because they have to both be the breadwinner and the homekeeper, and single mothers are more likely to have lower-paying jobs because they lack opportunity to further their education. It’s not the fact that there’s a father/mother missing, it’s the fact that many single parents are stressed out, had their kids too young, have no opportunity to get better jobs, and just overall aren’t properly equipped to taking care of kids.

This is the deal: there are limited grant dollars for doing these studies, and the whole process tends to be very skewed.

Thus in the 1970s, study after study came out showing that divorce nor working mothers had *no *negative effect on the children. Study after study showed that children raised by only one parent were just as well off, if not slightly better because of the independence that situation encouraged. Etc. It wasn’t till a couple of decades later that it started coming out that, actually, divorce was not all that great for kids, and that many of those children had problems into adulthood, some of which were not apparent until adulthood such as more difficulty maintaining romantic or marital relationships.

But that’s not an option here, because we’re talking about adoption. We’re talking about kids whose biological parents gave them up, or died. So the ideal situation (by your account) is not available to them.

However, situations *closer *to the ideal *are. *

This is the crux of the problem. That has not been established as a fact. We don’t know for sure that it is the lack of a parent of a particular sex that causes the problem, or if it is the issues I listed above. If that could be solved then our debate would be nearly over.

And this has not been studied, and it would be very difficult to study. The reason is that people are individuals.

If I take several plants and raise them in different situations, I will be able to draw some conclusions about how various environments affect that type of plant, no? That’s science.

The reason that the fields of study related to humans are called “soft sciences” is that it is really impossible to study them scientifically. Why? Because even in the same environment, those studied bring different qualities to the table.

Add to this the fact that the whole process is terribly political, and you get something which cannot really be called science at all. For example, cite any “anti”-homosexual study in many places and you will get the run-down on those who carried out the study, the organization they were associated with, and the same for those who funded the study, as well as a critique of the why the study was conducted and what that process can and cannot show.

Cite a study favorable to the aims of homosexual organizations, and not a word will be said about any of the above; instead, it will be taken as having proven what “everyone already should have known.”

However, what little information we are able to glean from these soft-science studies shows that fathers affect children greatly. For example, there is a study which shows that something like 3/4 of children with church-going dads go to church themselves, even if the mother does not attend. The number of children who attend is depressingly low if it is only the mother who attends.

Boys and girls react differently to the absence of their fathers, and boys and girls also react depending on the quality of the relationship they have with their fathers, in both divorced and together situations.

No, there are not yet studies on how having two “parents” of the same sex affects children, because this is completely unstudiable at this point. There are so few situations like this, there have been so few situations in which children were raised in a stable SS situation, that there simply is not enough information.

If that can be established as a definite fact then I’ll agree with you, but I don’t think it has been yet.

This will *never *be established as a definite fact through soft-scientific study.

Well, I’d say that particular couple has a long way to go before they become ideal. But I’d say that they are one of the ideals. We haven’t established that they are better than the homosexual couple. However, for a moment, let’s assume that a straight couple *is * in fact the ideal: so what? There are loads of children in foster care that need to be adopted, and not enough people to adopt them. Wouldn’t it be better to have the second or third best situation (a gay couple) than one of the worst (moving from foster home to foster home, never developing a real relationship with any parent figure)? Wouldn’t it be better to have two fathers and no mother than no parents at all? We know that a mother can raise a son and a father can raise a daughter, even if it’s more difficult for them. But isn’t that situation better than endless fostering?

Most children in foster care who are available and suitable to be adopted are adopted. It’s changing now, but for a long time there was such an emphasis on family reunification that it took a lot to get a child released for adoption.

For a while, another problem was that the social services in charge of all this wanted all the children to be placed in families of the same race, or at least black children with black parents.

This is a logical fallacy: You’re basically saying that gay couples are bad because they are gay. I forget which fallacy that is (begging the question maybe?). Correct me if I’m wrong though.

Not exactly. What I’m saying is that the nature of a homosexual relationship makes it unsuitable for placing children with homosexual couples for adoption or fostering.

The thing is, if you spend a lot of time as an adult in a family with children and parents of opposite sexes, you see that a lot of so-called facts are flat-out wrong.

In the 1970s, studies “showed” that there was no biological reason for boys and girls to be different; it was just the different ways that boys and girls were treated. OK, explain this: I did not carry a purse, yet my daughter wanted to carry a purse when she was less than a year old.

My daughter did not want to wear plain sneakers, she wanted to wear the shoes with flowers on them.

My son exhibited a fascination with men’s work from the time he was 15 months old; he built things with legos before he could walk; he swaggered! My daughter did none of those things!

Those studies were wrong, just as so many parents said they were!

 

[St_Francis]

…But that’s not an option here, because we’re talking about adoption. We’re talking about kids whose biological parents gave them up, or died. So the ideal situation (by your account) is not available to them. …

Now, I want to emphasize one point to which I alluded in my previous post.

there are vulnerable children out there: they have no parents of their own to protect them. We take responsibility for them and find families who will raise them.

This is a *huge *responsibility. We are talking about a child’s life–the effects are enormous and cannot be undone. There is no do-over when it comes to raising a child.

Who is the most important person in this equation? The *child. *Whose interests must we consider the most? The *child’s. *

Would we give the child to a lab so they could perform medical experiments on the child?
I think not!!!

And yet we propose to place vulnerable children in a situation about which we *do not know. *A situation which seems on the face of it to be lacking at least, or at best, two elements of the *ideal *situation: two sexes of parents raising the child, and two sexes of the adults in the home interacting with each other.

There are those who propose that we *change *the time-honored principles of placing children, on the basis that SS households are the same as 2S households.

The burden of the proof is not on those who would place the interests of the child at the top of the list of priorities to consider; the burden of proof is on those who support placing children with couples which are so very different in composition from the ideal.

Placing children with homosexual couples is an experiment. Should we *use *these unprotected children in our charge to conduct this experiment with? How could this possibly be seen as taking the interests of the *child *as our number one priority? It is not. It is making a tremendous change, not for the benefit of the child, but for the benefit of the *adults. *Hello? where did that come from?

*No one *has a “right” to adopt a child, the adults who want to adopt must prove themselves to be good enough to adopt. The type of situation must be *known *to be good enough to even consider placing a child in.

Adults who are standing on some fallacious idea of their “right to adopt” are not being truly loving people who want the best for the child. They are thinking of themselves and what they want. I am sorry that they cannot have children on their own due to the nature of their relationship, but that does not justify *experimenting *with children.

 

[andrewstx]

One thing I have noticed in this thread (I have read it all to now) is the hostility to homosexauls.

One other thing I have not noticed is the dogma that SSA attraction is not a mortal sin, just a disorder. Eveyone here has disorders and sins.

It is only same sex physical acts that are sinful and no more so than the sins that regular normal people commit.

But it seems that no-one will give homosexuals the benefit of the doubt, it’s like they are all without exception comming sodomy. But that is not true.

We have read posts from celebate chaste homosexuals and lesbians in these fora. But they never stick around. Could it be the hostility directed at all people with SSA? Chaste or not?

 

[St_Francis]

One thing I have noticed in this thread (I have read it all to now) is the hostility to homosexuals.

I do not want to comment on this as it might be that you think I am one of those people showing hostility to homosexuals. This is a very general charge, perhaps you could be more specific, or perhaps address it with the poster via pm?

One other thing I have not noticed is the dogma that SSA attraction is not a mortal sin, just a disorder. Eveyone here has disorders and sins.

Same sex *attraction *is not sinful; however, I have not heard that there are homosexuals out there who want to marry and adopt children who are not active homosexuals, which is the topic of this thread.

It is only same sex physical acts that are sinful and no more so than the sins that regular normal people commit.

Are you suggesting that there are homosexuals who “marry” yet remain chaste?

But it seems that no-one will give homosexuals the benefit of the doubt, it’s like they are all without exception comming sodomy. But that is not true.

We all agree that there are homosexuals who do not engage in homosexual behavior. We also all agree that homosexual inclinations are not sinful.

However, since the topic of the thread *is *adoption by homosexual *couples, *the general idea is that we are talking about sexually active homosexual couples.

We have read posts from celebate chaste homosexuals and lesbians in these fora. But they never stick around. Could it be the hostility directed at all people with SSA? Chaste or not?

Could it be that they have certain issues and concerns which they prefer not to address on a forum as public as this one is?

 

[Zosimus41]

Why is that? It’s never been explained to me. I don’t know to what extent “Gays cannot adopt” is the official catholic position but is there any reason to believe it hurts the child? Is there any evidence it turns them Gay? And what is to be said of those statements that we should kidnap the children of Gay couples? goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2012/08/bryan-fischer-continues-to-suggest-kidnapping-gay-peoples-kids-any-of-you-values-folks-care-to-say-something.html

The act of homosexuality is an abomination in the sight of God.

 

[Zosimus41]

We all agree that there are homosexuals who do not engage in homosexual behavior. We also all agree that homosexual inclinations are not sinful.
QUOTE]

I know what the church teaches about homosexuality but have a very difficult time wrapping my brain around it.

Seems like a very thin line. The bible tells us homosexuality is an abomination. A very strong word.

Jesus tells us sexual sins of the mind are as bad as actually commiting them.

How do we reconcile Gods strong warnings about sexuality with “its ok to have the inclinations for commiting an abominable act” against God himself?

 

[gntlmnr]

It is one thing to marry someone whom you love, it is another to “marry” just to get the benefits which were set up for people raising children and having sex.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by this statement, but I hope that I am not taking it out of its context.

What bothers me about it is that any time we talk about homosexuals, homosexual relationships, “gay” marriage, or what have you, all we hear about is JUST to get BENEFITS and to have SEX.

I am a homosexual, and I don’t consider myself as a sexual robot without any feelings. I am very capable of loving a man just as any other man is capable of loving a woman in the real sense of love.

The fact that we describe homosexuality as an attraction to same “gender” person, doesn’t mean at all that there is no love to same “gender” people.

Can anyone deny that any heterosexual love started initially by an “attraction” to the opposite gender?

 

[gntlmnr]

St Francis;9639250:

We all agree that there are homosexuals who do not engage in homosexual behavior. We also all agree that homosexual inclinations are not sinful.
QUOTE]

I know what the church teaches about homosexuality but have a very difficult time wrapping my brain around it.

Seems like a very thin line. The bible tells us homosexuality is an abomination. A very strong word.

Jesus tells us sexual sins of the mind are as bad as actually commiting them.

How do we reconcile Gods strong warnings about sexuality with “its ok to have the inclinations for commiting an abominable act” against God himself?

In order to understand Christianity, one has to use common sense, otherwise we are all condemned to hell without any exceptions.

But Like I said in a previous post. Heterosexual love does not start automatically from the first instant as love. It does start with an attraction. While the term attraction does not have to be completely sexual attraction, it definitely has sexual connotation.

So when a heterosexual couple are attracted to each other to start a love relationship, are they committing a sin by their attraction to each other?

 

[St_Francis]

I am not sure exactly what you mean by this statement, but I hope that I am not taking it out of its context.

What bothers me about it is that any time we talk about homosexuals, homosexual relationships, “gay” marriage, or what have you, all we hear about is JUST to get BENEFITS and to have SEX.

To be perfectly honest, I have *no idea *why I included having sex in that sentence I certainly did not mean that homosexuals “marry” just to have sex… that seems to have been happening without legal recognition for a really long time!

Homosexuals have been “marrying” without legal benefit for some time now. They don’t have legal recognition, but they had sometimes even a ceremony in a church. Certain social circles consider them married.

On the other hand, the reasons put forth for homosexuals to have their relationships *legally *recognized *have *centered around benefits: hospital visitation & medical care issues, house-buying and ownership issues, and the big one was health insurance–a huge one when AIDS was causing so much suffering. All the other issues could be resolved, but back then–less so now–the health insurance issue had no resolution. And once there were arranged through civil unions, the issue of adoption started coming up.

Even if the sole reason put forth by homosexuals to have their relationships to be legally recognized were love, that still drastically changes the legal perception of marriage. There is no getting around the fact that marriage confers benefits, and that all heterosexual married people receive these benefits whether they are likely to have children or not. The legal basis for these benefits has always been the procreative *nature *of the relationship, whether or not in the individual case procreation occurred or not. the legal basis for marriage is that it is the starting of a family. This is simply impossible due to the *nature *of the homosexual union. There is no reason for extending the benefits which are to support and encourage people to have and raise children under optimal circumstances to those who by the very nature of their relationship cannot provide that.

I am a homosexual, and I don’t consider myself as a sexual robot without any feelings. I am very capable of loving a man just as any other man is capable of loving a woman in the real sense of love.

I am not saying that homosexuals cannot love each other. I have a relative who had a very loving romantic relationship with someone we all liked very much for over 20 years–much longer than some heterosexual marriages.

However, in the realm of law, we cannot take into account these types of individual considerations except for proportionate reasons. For example, if I am speeding, does the fact that I am running late reduce the fine? Even the fact that I am running late for an appointment with a cancer specialist I have been waiting a long time to see? Even the fact that the reason that I am late is that there was a traffic accident? No. If I am driving a woman in labor or having a heart attack, then maybe. That’s proportionality.

We are talking about changes in the law. We are talking about potentially affecting vulnerable children (remember the thread topic). Is the desire of those whose relationship is *inherently *non-procreative to enter into marriage proportionate to the change we would be making? No.

The fact that we describe homosexuality as an attraction to same “gender” person, doesn’t mean at all that there is no love to same “gender” people.

I apologize that my focus on the principles involved obscures that.

 

[St_Francis]

St Francis;9639250:

We all agree that there are homosexuals who do not engage in homosexual behavior. We also all agree that homosexual inclinations are not sinful.
QUOTE]

I know what the church teaches about homosexuality but have a very difficult time wrapping my brain around it.

Seems like a very thin line. The bible tells us homosexuality is an abomination. A very strong word.

Jesus tells us sexual sins of the mind are as bad as actually commiting them.

How do we reconcile Gods strong warnings about sexuality with “its ok to have the inclinations for commiting an abominable act” against God himself?

It may be helpful to understand that until the late 1800s, there was no idea of “homosexuality” as a state of being. There were no words in the language for that–in fact, our word still has a dual meaning (homosexuality meaning the state of being attracted to members of one’s own sex, and homosexuality as the activities involved).

Look at how Church teachings relate to any other temptation: the mere fact of having a temptation is not sinful: temptations cross our minds all the time, no? I feel like getting drunk, I feel like cussing this person out, I feel like telling a lie… What matters is whether we invite them in and entertain them, and whether we then go further and act on them.

The state of being a homosexual is simply one who suffers an attraction to members of his or her own sex. Just as the attraction a single woman might feel for a married man needs to be treated as any other temptation to sin, so does the homosexual’s attraction to another person of the same sex.

Scripture tells us that homosexual *activity *is a sin which cries out to Heaven for vengeance. There are three other sins which also cry out to Heaven–murder, defrauding the worker of his wages, and oppressing widows and orphans.

 

[St_Francis]

I know what the church teaches about homosexuality but have a very difficult time wrapping my brain around it.

Seems like a very thin line. The bible tells us homosexuality is an abomination. A very strong word.

Jesus tells us sexual sins of the mind are as bad as actually commiting them.

How do we reconcile Gods strong warnings about sexuality with “its ok to have the inclinations for commiting an abominable act” against God himself?

It may be helpful to understand that until the late 1800s, there was no idea of “homosexuality” as a state of being. There were no words in the language for that–in fact, our word still has a dual meaning (homosexuality meaning the state of being attracted to members of one’s own sex, and homosexuality as the activities involved).

Look at how Church teachings relate to any other temptation: the mere fact of having a temptation is not sinful: temptations cross our minds all the time, no? I feel like getting drunk, I feel like cussing this person out, I feel like telling a lie… What matters is whether we invite them in and entertain them, and whether we then go further and act on them.

The state of being a homosexual is simply one who suffers an attraction to members of his or her own sex. Just as the attraction a single woman might feel for a married man needs to be treated as any other temptation to sin, so does the homosexual’s attraction to another person of the same sex.

Scripture tells us that homosexual *activity *is a sin which cries out to Heaven for vengeance. There are three other sins which also cry out to Heaven–murder, defrauding the worker of his wages, and oppressing widows and orphans.

 

[St_Francis]

Zosimus41;9639386:

In order to understand Christianity, one has to use common sense, otherwise we are all condemned to hell without any exceptions.

But Like I said in a previous post. Heterosexual love does not start automatically from the first instant as love. It does start with an attraction. While the term attraction does not have to be completely sexual attraction, it definitely has sexual connotation.

So when a heterosexual couple are attracted to each other to start a love relationship, are they committing a sin by their attraction to each other?

Ummmm, no.

Throughout time, the norm was to marry through an arrangement, which rarely had anything to do with romantic love. (I won’t go into the history of romantic love…) For most of history and for most societies, marriages were arranged or entered into for practical reasons. There have been plenty of marriages which started out with two people who had never even met before!

The type of love which starts as “an attraction” is not the type of love which will carry a couple through the physical ravages of time, the sickness of many pregnancies, the exhaustion of raising and providing for a family, and all the problems which arise in marriage.

The type of love which carries a couple through all the difficult circumstances is a willed love, a love which is decided upon, a decision to do what is best *for the **other ***person. **That *is the type of love which the marriage vows talk about: for richer for poorer; for better, for worse; in sickness and in health…A willed love is the decision to stay with a person and be good to him or her even when everything is collapsing around their heads.

Romantic love is what people who divorce say went away; willed love is what people who stick together need.

*Again, the issue of proportionality comes into play: if there is danger to the spouse or children, staying is not an option.

 

[St_Francis]

…Can anyone deny that any heterosexual love started initially by an “attraction” to the opposite gender?

Ummm, yes…

n order to understand Christianity, one has to use common sense, otherwise we are all condemned to hell without any exceptions.

But Like I said in a previous post. Heterosexual love does not start automatically from the first instant as love. It does start with an attraction. While the term attraction does not have to be completely sexual attraction, it definitely has sexual connotation.

Ummmm, no.

Throughout time, the norm was to marry through an arrangement, which rarely had anything to do with romantic love. (I won’t go into the history of romantic love…) For most of history and for most societies, marriages were arranged or entered into for practical reasons. There have been plenty of marriages which started out with two people who had never even met before!

The type of love which starts as “an attraction” is not the type of love which will carry a couple through the physical ravages of time, the sickness of many pregnancies, the exhaustion of raising and providing for a family, and all the problems which arise in marriage.

The type of love which carries a couple through all the difficult circumstances is a willed love, a love which is decided upon, a decision to do what is best *for the **other **person. ***That *is the type of love which the marriage vows talk about: for richer for poorer; for better, for worse; in sickness and in health…A willed love is the decision to stay with a person and be good to him or her even when everything is collapsing around their heads.

Romantic love is what people who divorce say went away; willed love is what people who stick together need.

*Again, the issue of proportionality comes into play: if there is danger to the spouse or children, staying is not an option.

 

[St_Francis]

So when a heterosexual couple are attracted to each other to start a love relationship, are they committing a sin by their attraction to each other?

In any situation, the attraction is not a sin; what is a sin is what one does with it. I don’t know how to link to only one post, I’m sorry, but if you look at the last post on the previous page, I explained more about Church teaching on the matter.

 

[gntlmnr]

Zosimus41;9639386:

There are three other sins which also cry out to Heaven–murder, defrauding the worker of his wages, and oppressing widows and orphans.

Is it the merciful God that categorized love with the other three?

By the way, I read the four Gospels of Jesus Christ, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I never read a single word that says “homosexual” or any of its derivatives.

 

[gntlmnr]

In any situation, the attraction is not a sin; what is a sin is what one does with it. I don’t know how to link to only one post, I’m sorry, but if you look at the last post on the previous page, I explained more about Church teaching on the matter.

I am sorry if I did not express myself clearly about this issue. But what I was trying to tell Zosimus41 that homosexual attraction in itself is not a sin just as much as heterosexual attraction in itself is not a sin. I am agreeing with you on this point.

But I am disagreeing with you on the fact that you’re always trying to distinguish the essence of heterosexual love from the essence of homosexual love.

Being a homosexual myself and that I have grown up in a completely heterosexual world with heterosexual parents and siblings and heterosexual relatives and neighbors, and heterosexual friends from both genders, and I was raised in the Catholic Church and I went to a Catholic school, I have a pretty good idea what is meant by “heterosexual love”. But like I said being a homosexual, I do feel that I can fulfill these requirements that we are talking about. I don’t want to love a homosexual man just for sex and then leave him when he is trouble or when he is poor or when he is sick, etc…, etc…

I think you simply fail to understand homosexuality as whole. I do not blame you, because homosexuals themselves did not articulate it properly before the sexual revolution, because they were oppressed and they were not allowed to articulate it, and they did not articulate it properly after the sexual revolution, because like everything else materialism took over and did not leave room for articulation.

Besides I hope that you don’t want us to go back in time and have arranged marriages like the old days leaving out romantic love. Humanity progressed. Sometimes to the better and sometimes to the worse, but I happen to think that the introduction of romantic love was not such a horrible idea. We abandoned many things from the old days. I can give you a couple of examples. God is not offended anymore when we eat pork and when we do not circumcise.

 

[Zosimus41]

It may be helpful to understand that until the late 1800s, there was no idea of “homosexuality” as a state of being. There were no words in the language for that–in fact, our word still has a dual meaning (homosexuality meaning the state of being attracted to members of one’s own sex, and homosexuality as the activities involved).

Look at how Church teachings relate to any other temptation: the mere fact of having a temptation is not sinful: temptations cross our minds all the time, no? I feel like getting drunk, I feel like cussing this person out, I feel like telling a lie… What matters is whether we invite them in and entertain them, and whether we then go further and act on them.

The state of being a homosexual is simply one who suffers an attraction to members of his or her own sex. Just as the attraction a single woman might feel for a married man needs to be treated as any other temptation to sin, so does the homosexual’s attraction to another person of the same sex.

Scripture tells us that homosexual *activity *is a sin which cries out to Heaven for vengeance. There are three other sins which also cry out to Heaven–murder, defrauding the worker of his wages, and oppressing widows and orphans.

First of all thank you for taking the time to respond,

Just as the attraction a single woman might feel for a married man This seems like an much easier problem to solve than some who cannot fulfill their very state of who they claim to be.

Do homosexuals have to deal with a lot of guilt for having these tendencies? or frustration when trying to live a chased life in order not to commit a mortal sin and things being the way they are and live a holy life.

The only way for me to imagine what they (homosexuals) are going through is to imagine if married hetrosexualism were a mortal sin and the frustration I would be going through.
Honestly I am not sure I could do it. (women are just too awesome).

Its like the old tale of the frog and scorpion

One day, a scorpion looked around at the mountain where he lived and decided that he wanted a change. So he set out on a journey through the forests and hills. He climbed over rocks and under vines and kept going until he reached a river.
The river was wide and swift, and the scorpion stopped to reconsider the situation. He couldn’t see any way across. So he ran upriver and then checked downriver, all the while thinking that he might have to turn back.

Suddenly, he saw a frog sitting in the rushes by the bank of the stream on the other side of the river. He decided to ask the frog for help getting across the stream.

“Hellooo Mr. Frog!” called the scorpion across the water, “Would you be so kind as to give me a ride on your back across the river?”

“Well now, Mr. Scorpion! How do I know that if I try to help you, you wont try to kill me?” asked the frog hesitantly.

“Because,” the scorpion replied, “If I try to kill you, then I would die too, for you see I cannot swim!”

Now this seemed to make sense to the frog. But he asked. “What about when I get close to the bank? You could still try to kill me and get back to the shore!”

“This is true,” agreed the scorpion, “But then I wouldn’t be able to get to the other side of the river!”

“Alright then…how do I know you wont just wait till we get to the other side and THEN kill me?” said the frog.

“Ahh…,” crooned the scorpion, “Because you see, once you’ve taken me to the other side of this river, I will be so grateful for your help, that it would hardly be fair to reward you with death, now would it?!”

So the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river. He swam over to the bank and settled himself near the mud to pick up his passenger. The scorpion crawled onto the frog’s back, his sharp claws prickling into the frog’s soft hide, and the frog slid into the river. The muddy water swirled around them, but the frog stayed near the surface so the scorpion would not drown. He kicked strongly through the first half of the stream, his flippers paddling wildly against the current.

Halfway across the river, the frog suddenly felt a sharp sting in his back and, out of the corner of his eye, saw the scorpion remove his stinger from the frog’s back. A deadening numbness began to creep into his limbs.
“You fool!” croaked the frog, “Now we shall both die! Why on earth did you do that?”
The scorpion shrugged, and did a little jig on the drownings frog’s back.
“I could not help myself. It is my nature.”
Then they both sank into the muddy waters of the swiftly flowing river.

Self destruction - “Its my Nature”, said the Scorpion…

 

[St_Francis]

I am sorry if I did not express myself clearly about this issue. But what I was trying to tell Zosimus41 that homosexual attraction in itself is not a sin just as much as heterosexual attraction in itself is not a sin. I am agreeing with you on this point.

But I am disagreeing with you on the fact that you’re always trying to distinguish the essence of heterosexual love from the essence of homosexual love.

What I am talking about is not the essence of love but the nature of the sexual act whether it’s the result of love or something else.

Maybe if we look at it this way: God has made it quite clear that He wants sexual activity to be reserved for marriage, and that He wants marriage to be between a man and a woman.

All those who do not marry, for whatever reason, are not to engage in sexual activity, which is reserved for marriage, which is for the purpose of bearing and raising children.

Being a homosexual myself and that I have grown up in a completely heterosexual world with heterosexual parents and siblings and heterosexual relatives and neighbors, and heterosexual friends from both genders, and I was raised in the Catholic Church and I went to a Catholic school, I have a pretty good idea what is meant by “heterosexual love”. But like I said being a homosexual, I do feel that I can fulfill these requirements that we are talking about. I don’t want to love a homosexual man just for sex and then leave him when he is trouble or when he is poor or when he is sick, etc…, etc…

And no one is saying you should abandon someone in need–it’s just that God has made it clear that you should not have sex with him at any point.

I think you simply fail to understand homosexuality as whole. I do not blame you, because homosexuals themselves did not articulate it properly before the sexual revolution, because they were oppressed and they were not allowed to articulate it, and they did not articulate it properly after the sexual revolution, because like everything else materialism took over and did not leave room for articulation.

I generally do not bring in the personal when discussing principles, but I will do so now. I had ***no clue ***what marriage was about until I married and had children. Altho I was baptized Catholic and received only what was then considered the bare minimum of instruction to receive the sacraments, I was raised secular and was a practical atheist through my childhood to young adulthood, and came only to believe in God before my oldest was born, after which I became a generic Christian for a couple of years, then returned to the Church.

I totally understand the secular view of love, marriage, and sex (I am not saying that *you *hold those views, but that society does). Sex is for fun, ideally expressing what the people believe will be a life-long love but not necessarily; procreation is something to be avoided as an unfortunate side-effect; marriage is a piece of paper telling the world that two people looooove each other until they fall out of love and obtain a no-fault divorce because they certainly should not be trapped in a love-less marriage! (Not saying anyone in particular holds these views, but that society in general does.)

Besides I hope that you don’t want us to go back in time and have arranged marriages like the old days leaving out romantic love. Humanity progressed. Sometimes to the better and sometimes to the worse, but I happen to think that the introduction of romantic love was not such a horrible idea.

I cannot imagine how you got the idea that I might want to return to arranged marriages. Could you point out where you got the idea I was saying that so I can avoid making that type of writing mistake again?

We abandoned many things from the old days. I can give you a couple of examples. God is not offended anymore when we eat pork and when we do not circumcise.

They didn’t cover this in your Catholic school? Your examples are matters of discipline, not morals. Morals are unchanging.

 

[St_Francis]

Is it the merciful God that categorized love with the other three?

I don’t understand what you mean by this.

By the way, I read the four Gospels of Jesus Christ, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I never read a single word that says “homosexual” or any of its derivatives.

Did you see the words Trinity, Eucharist, pope, ordination, sacrament…? We are not protestants who look only to Scripture; for us, Scripture is only one of three sources of Catholic teaching.

 

[gntlmnr]

I generally do not bring in the personal when discussing principles.

I’m truly sorry if you felt that I was attacking you personally when I said that you fail to completely understand something that you are not. I personally fail to completely understand many, if not all, things that I am not.

But I see this discussion is going nowhere.

I sincerely thank you for your time and your effort.