Good answer! We need to emphasize that God intended that the unitive and procreative aspect of the marriage embrace not be artificially separated in some way by the will of man.To unify the husband with his wife in a perfect embrace, so as to become one flesh - so one, at times, that they will have to think of a name for him, and buy him some clothes and a crib.
Alright let’s look at it this way. God creates men and women, but it is beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does in fact create each of us with certain genetic and behavioral predispositions towards certain behavior. For instance, God definitely created me with a very strong sexual attraction to women. I have zero interest in men and honestly can not really understand another man’s interest in men. I think men are pretty much gross and could not have homosexual sex even if all the women and pornography in the world were to suddenly vanish and all that was left were men. This is not something that I learned, it was just natural to me, God created this in me, I was born this way. Conversely, I know friends who have an equally strong attraction to other men, some act on it some do not, however the attraction was definitely not put there by society. In fact why would anyone choose to be attracted to other men when women are so darn pretty. It seems self evident to me, that these men obviously were born with this PREDISPOSITION. You are correct God did not create gays and lesbians, but he definitely created us with varying degrees of attraction to members of the same or opposite sex, so the better question is why would God create one person with a strong attraction to the same sex, while in another he created them with a strong attraction to the same sex. I think claims to original sin are a bit of a cop out from critical thinking, for if God were to be fair, we would all have exactly the same degree of attraction to members of the opposite sex. Does god just want to torture people? I don’t think so.
God allows all sorts of afflictions, and most everyone is exposed to one or more during their lifetime. Sinful as they may be, they can help a person climb the ladder of virtue when looked at in the right light. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with SSA, the problem is the refusal to grow in virtue.
Thank you for the warm welcome. I think the flaw in this argument is that the Church does not teach that it is deviant for couples to have sex for purposes other than reproduction. Couples who are infertile or past child bearing age are in no manner precluded from having sexual relations, nor are those relations considered deviant. So it follows that it is clearly not deviant to have sexual relations for non-procreative purposes.
Yes but a homosexual act will never naturally produce children. What is the purpose of homosexual acts?
And neither will a sexual act with a couple who is past child bearing age, or a couple that is infertile. So what is the purpose of non-procreative sexual relations amongst heterosexual couples? You are applying a double standard.
The flaw is not in heterosexual act itself but another complication.
It’s not the result of the act that matters. Heterosexual intercourse is ordered toward procreation. The acts are the same acts and they are ordered toward procreation whether or not the individuals are fertile or fecund. Homosexual activity is not ordered toward procreation. The acts are sterile regardless of the fertility or potency of the individuals involved.
The act is still sterile if the heterosexual couple is sterile. Yes the action is the same, but again, the purpose and intention is totally and completely different. Cena said that sexual actions not directed at procreation are deviant. So I ask this question, are sexual actions between an infertile couple deviant or not? If not why not? Let us then assume that the couple could have a child if they were to take fertility enhancers, would the couple then be prohibited from having sex, unless they took the fertility treatment. Sex must have some other purpose other than procreation, otherwise the infertile couple automatically engages in deviant sex.
I said that?
Unless a crime has been committed, God alone has the right to judge. The concept of judging the private sexual activities of other consenting adults as “sinful” seems to me to be extremely presumptuous. It’s private between the couple concerned.
:clapping:
Yes!!!
What is sexuality? And what is a gay person in that context?
When a man and woman have sex in the normal way, they are acting procreatively. Their marital embrace looks procreative. If all things line up in the proper way “behind the scenes” then the act will be procreative and produce a child. But these things don’t need to line up. All the man and woman have to do is play their part properly and in good faith. This means not frustrating it artificially, through Sodomy, Onanism, barrier methods, spermicide, abortifacients, or whatever other evil means Man can dream up. If one or the other happens to be sterile, either temporarily or permanently, under God’s will, this does not change their intent or their actions, which are innocent and obedient to God.
So you don’t believe in the Darwin theory of Evolution, surprised!.
Unless we are perfect in our own lives, which I certainly am not, God alone has the right to judge us. Too many assumptions are being made about other people on these threads. Surely we should each mind our own business instead of presuming to pass judgement upon how other consenting adults conduct their private lives.
Non-fertile heterosexual couples can still become “one flesh” - other forms of sex (including contracepted sex) do not achieve that same unity.