Why Homosexual Unions are Wrong

[severus68]

Where the sin is understood to represent a continuing danger to the children, the state may well remove them. For example, if the parents hold orgies in the home, or make adult movies, or whatever, without adequately insulating the children from access to this activity.

Yes, but do most homosexual partners hold orgies etc? I did worry about the children getting confused about their identity but that seems baseless as I do not think gays would wish that condition on anyone or that their agenda is to make everyone gay or to teach that same sex couples are the norm.

How do we balance saying homosexuals have the same dignity as anyone else, should be treated with the same Christian love as anyone else with saying they have additional crosses to bear and should not even adopt children?

 

[Cle_GDP_10]

This seems to be the crux of your argument. My question is: Why is being raised by a mother and father inherently better than being raised by two men or two women? Sure, it’s traditional, but that doesn’t make it better.

Is it because you think that kids need a “masculine” role and a “feminine” role to look up to, or is it because human reproduction requires a mother and father? If it were possible, hypothetically, for two people of the same sex to procreate, would gay relationships be okay?

How would you feel if your children were raised by a gay couple? Do you think this would lead them to question their own sexual orientations?

 

[Oreoracle]

How would you feel if your children were raised by a gay couple? Do you think this would lead them to question their own sexual orientations?

Naturally, if I had children, I wouldn’t wish to give them up. It wouldn’t make a difference whether the adoptive couple were straight or gay.

Also, I have a serious question for everyone: Did you come to conclusions about your own sexuality by observing your parents? I know I didn’t. Around 12 or 13, girls just began to look appealing. It’s not something I had to think about or wrap my head around.

 

[Rau]

Yes, but do most homosexual partners hold orgies etc? I did worry about the children getting confused about their identity but that seems baseless as I do not think gays would wish that condition on anyone or that their agenda is to make everyone gay or to teach that same sex couples are the norm.

How do we balance saying homosexuals have the same dignity as anyone else, should be treated with the same Christian love as anyone else with saying they have additional crosses to bear and should not even adopt children?

Of course they do not, and that was not your question. You asked whether heterosexual parents could lose their children by sinning, and I answered how they could. Society views orgies and the like as a morally harmful environment, for children anyway. Much of society does not currently view homosexual guardians as morally harmful.

The hypothetical homosexuals you are referring to are, as I understand it, practicing homosexuals. If they have achieved broad acceptance for their relationship, perhaps civil marriage, I’m unsure how much of a “cross” they are actually bearing. And of course, adoption decisions are to be made for the good of the child, not to give comfort to the adult(s).

 

[Rau]

How would you feel if your children were raised by a gay couple? Do you think this would lead them to question their own sexual orientations?

To your last question, I don’t know, probably not. But it would no doubt result in those children being taught an unacceptable (to me) moral code.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Yes, but do most homosexual partners hold orgies etc? I did worry about the children getting confused about their identity but that seems baseless as I do not think gays would wish that condition on anyone or that their agenda is to make everyone gay or to teach that same sex couples are the norm.

How do we balance saying homosexuals have the same dignity as anyone else, should be treated with the same Christian love as anyone else with saying they have additional crosses to bear and should not even adopt children?

There is inevitable modeling whereby parents impart to their children and children take from their parents a whole spectrum of social values and behavior. This is not to say that an unexpected outcome or an exception results at times. For example, a teen who swears a lot in whatever company or social gathering he is in probably hears a lot of swearing at home from his parents. The teen that grows up in a home where it is discouraged would not be the type to drop swear or cuss words as a manner of expression.

Understanding that homosexuals carrying additional cross does not mean we violate the Christian principle of love for neighbor in opposing the adoption of children by homosexual couples . Certainly, as a Catholic, you have heard or come across the admonition of our Pope, past and present, against adoption by gay couples or placement of children in same sex homes. It is a form of abuse, abuse that is not limited to the physical or mental kind. Sure, homosexuals also come from traditional homes with a mother and a father but pedagogy of the young need not start with the notion that same sex relations is the norm or the ideal.
,

 

[LongingSoul]

Yes, but do most homosexual partners hold orgies etc? I did worry about the children getting confused about their identity but that seems baseless as I do not think gays would wish that condition on anyone or that their agenda is to make everyone gay or to teach that same sex couples are the norm.

How do we balance saying homosexuals have the same dignity as anyone else, should be treated with the same Christian love as anyone else with saying they have additional crosses to bear and should not even adopt children?

Basically you’re appealing to the theory of situational ethics to justify this particular practice and this is not Catholic teaching.

The Catechism guides us thus…

***1754 **The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

**1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention **that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. *

 

[severus68]

Basically you’re appealing to the theory of situational ethics to justify this particular practice and this is not Catholic teaching.

The Catechism guides us thus…

***1754 ***The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

**1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention **that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

I am not appealing to anything. I was just posting my train of thoughts about this in a discussion with a particular poster.

This is off-topic I am not going to post or respond anymore to be fair to everyone but I will just say that wanting children is not evil or immoral. It is natural.

 

[Lynxdk]

Am I pretty much on mark? I know there are other reasons to forbid it, yet this seems to me the most important…

If they have Gods blessing, who are you to judge? I think you people need to start minding your own business.

 

[severus68]

There is inevitable modeling whereby parents impart to their children and children take from their parents a whole spectrum of social values and behavior. This is not to say that an unexpected outcome or an exception results at times. For example, a teen who swears a lot in whatever company or social gathering he is in probably hears a lot of swearing at home from his parents. The teen that grows up in a home where it is discouraged would not be the type to drop swear or cuss words as a manner of expression.

Understanding that homosexuals carrying additional cross does not mean we violate the Christian principle of love for neighbor in opposing the adoption of children by homosexual couples . Certainly, as a Catholic, you have heard or come across the admonition of our Pope, past and present, against adoption by gay couples or placement of children in same sex homes. It is a form of abuse, abuse that is not limited to the physical or mental kind. Sure, homosexuals also come from traditional homes with a mother and a father but pedagogy of the young need not start with the notion that same sex relations is the norm or the ideal.
,

Thank you for your response. I do understand the position of the Church on this. I do agree with what you have said here as being facts except I do not see any abuse as such.

Parents who swear, lie would then be guilty of abuse and should not have any children and those they have, should be taken away, following such reasoning of consequence.

Anyway, its off-topic so not prolonging discussion.

 

[Lynxdk]

Parents who swear, lie would then be guilty of abuse and should not have any children and those they have, should be taken away, following such reasoning of consequence.

Anyway, its off-topic so not prolonging discussion.

I think that answer is pretty on topic. All the discussion of this subject doesn’t even begin to take into account the problem of “what do we do about it?”

There’s nothing to be done about it. People are people, and always will be. God gave each of us free will, for a reason.

 

[Rau]

Thank you for your response. I do understand the position of the Church on this. I do agree with what you have said here as being facts except I do not see any abuse as such.

Parents who swear, lie would then be guilty of abuse and should not have any children and those they have, should be taken away, following such reasoning of consequence.

Anyway, its off-topic so not prolonging discussion.

If I model to children in my care behaviour which is depraved, I think that is reasonably termed abuse.

Your reasoning is flawed in that the behaviours you list eg, swearing, do not rise to the same level of immorality as homosexual relations.

Of course this argument rests on the belief that homosexual relations are gravely immoral.

 

[Lynxdk]

Of course this argument rests on the belief that homosexual relations are gravely immoral.

There you have it. Now take a look at the people who hold those beliefs. All of them Obsessed with the Physical, Worldly matters, that they were told to let go of, over 2000 years ago.

Not to mention how do you know that most of these people aren’t engaged in Celibate marriages, With God Directly involved in the raising of the children? The way it Should be?

She’s getting pissed.

~Mercy~

 

[raaucoin]

I haven’t always been a faithful disciple of church doctrine.

There was a time when I flirted with " progressive Catholocism" and even agnosticism and irreligion. I used to think there was no reason to ban gay “marriage”, thinking “live and let live” and what harm could it do?

I think Ive discovered though, that the greatest harm homosexual unions do is in terms of child rearing. If a child is raised by a homosexual couple, either through adoption or in vitro fertilization, you are denying the child of a mother and a father in their lives.

I realize due to circumstances not every child can be raised by their biological parents, and due to unfortunate circumstances, must be taken in by others. With homosexual couples, it seems it is a desirable outcome for children to not be raised by their biological parents ( and the homosexual couple instead of them.)

I also take exception to people saying that some kids will just grow up with “two dads” or “two moms”. Anyone should know that is false, and in such a situation there is simply a mother or father who exists but simply is not in the picture ( and not wanted, at least by the gay parents.)

I don’t mean to sound harsh or critical, but as gay marriage is gaining steam in the United States, I have just been thinking about it in ways I haven’t before. The inconvenient fact is, a homosexual couple is not and never can be the same as a heterosexual one. It’s as if the left would have us believe that the unique roles of “mother” and “father” are worthless and unworthy of distinction.

Am I pretty much on mark? I know there are other reasons to forbid it, yet this seems to me the most important…

If your main argument is because of children, this is not a good argument. Many many gay men and lesbians do not desire to have or raise children. There are other arguments that better " hold water".

 

[severus68]

If I model to children in my care behaviour which is depraved, I think that is reasonably termed abuse.

Your reasoning is flawed in that the behaviours you list eg, swearing, do not rise to the same level of immorality as homosexual relations.

Of course this argument rests on the belief that homosexual relations are gravely immoral.

I am uncomfortable with it but that is me. I would not use the word “depraved”. Would you then call adultery depraved too? It is also a sexual sin.

On your reference to my reasoning, please read the post I was responding too.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Thank you for your response. I do understand the position of the Church on this. I do agree with what you have said here as being facts except I do not see any abuse as such.

Parents who swear, lie would then be guilty of abuse and should not have any children and those they have, should be taken away, following such reasoning of consequence.

Anyway, its off-topic so not prolonging discussion.

In readback of my post, I meant the opposite in my second sentence. Hence I am correcting it. It should read as:

…This is not to say that no unexpected outcome or an exception results at times. …

My point in the example of a teen given to swearing is that said manner of expression is likely a product of what he hears at home, from a parent or parents swearing a lot as a habit, because children look to them as models of behavior. I was not talking about lying but being vulgar and profane in language, which is a socially undesirable trait. This does not rise to the same level or seriousness of parental modeling that normalizes active homosexuality, with same sex partners acting as the equivalent of a husband and wife to each other and “parents” to children. As I said there is a whole spectrum of social values and behavior, good , bad, in different degrees, and neutral that a child picks up from his parents.

Matthew 18:6 may help explain why placement of children with same sex “parents” or gay adoption of children is a form of abuse according to our Church leaders. Leading the children astray, to sin, is a serious transgression that Jesus Himself said it is better that a millstone be hung around the person’s neck and he be thrown into the depths of the sea. Our Church teaches this.

Catholic Charities had to shut down its child adoption service which it had been providing to place orphans and needy children in living homes for decades because our misguided government forced it to place kids with homosexual couples. Homosexual couples are in unnatural and sinful relationships and to place kids for them to raise would likewise be immoral.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I think that answer is pretty on topic. All the discussion of this subject doesn’t even begin to take into account the problem of “what do we do about it?”

There’s nothing to be done about it. People are people, and always will be. God gave each of us free will, for a reason.

What do we do about marriage “equality” that homosexual activists wish to be national law, about gay adoption? Oppose it the way responsible and future looking citizens go about it. Pray for the defense of the natural family and the common good.

Yes, individuals do exercise free will. And collectively, people can clamor and move for change. Bad laws (Roe v Wade) can be reversed or changed.
,

If they have Gods blessing, who are you to judge? I think you people need to start minding your own business.

Homosexual unions / “marriages” have God’s blessings how? The common, social good needs to be everybody’s business.

There you have it. Now take a look at the people who hold those beliefs. All of them Obsessed with the Physical, Worldly matters, that they were told to let go of, over 2000 years ago.

Not to mention how do you know **that most of these people aren’t engaged in Celibate marriages, **With God Directly involved in the raising of the children? The way it Should be?

She’s getting pissed.

~Mercy~

How do you know that in most gay “marriages” the couples are not celibate? If same sex unions do not include sex, why would they want to or be “married”? Why pose as “parents”?

Your posts are presumptive of the opposite and confusing.

“She’s getting pissed.” ? Please explain who and what you mean.
,

 

[Rau]

…how do you know that most of these people aren’t engaged in Celibate marriages…

Perhaps such relationships exist, but the gay community conveys the reverse idea, given they argue their unions are no different to a heterosexual couple. Further, marriage is an inherently sexual institution, yet that is the institution the gay community wishes to share (despite fundamental ineligibility).

 

[DrTaffy]

If same sex unions do not include sex, why would they want to or be “married”? Why pose as “parents”?,

Did Joseph and Mary’s marriage deserve “scare quotes”?

Were they only posing as parents?

 

[Anamaria97]

Did Joseph and Mary’s marriage deserve “scare quotes”?

Were they only posing as parents?

How could Mary pose as Jesus’ mother when she is literally the Mother of God? And Joseph is considered a “foster father”, which means that he was a parent to Jesus as well.

Comparing their stable relationship to a gay marriage doesn’t really work.