Why is Homosexuality Wrong?

[90Domer]

Untrue, it is both procreative AND unitive, as the above posters have explained. The marital embrace brings together a husband and wife. They truly become “one flesh” in a unitive, procreative act.

The word “sin” means “to miss the mark”. In archery, if you don’t hit a bullseye, you have missed the mark. Under Divine Law, all things that are outside the order which God has set up for humankind are considered sin. For example, we owe worship to God alone who is worthy of our adoration. When we worship other gods, or objects, or something that is not God, we have sinned, because we have failed to give worship where it is due, and we have become idolatrous in putting our faith into something or someone else.

Only sex that is open to procreation within the context of a valid marriage is permitted by God because of His vision for the family as the building block of society. This rules out things like sodomy and masturbation. Two men cannot validly marry because they lack sexual complementarity. They cannot complete each other and become “one flesh”, because bottom line, they do not have the right equipment. Only one man and one woman are physically equipped by our Creator for the marital embrace and only they can complete it in the way God has ordained it.

The Church has done much research and development on these points, but the kernel of truth was in the Garden of Eden, when God created one man and one woman, and gave the woman to the man, and commanded them (and us) to “be fruitful and multiply.” That was not just an idle comment or suggestion. It is a divine command. We are obliged to explore the vocation of marriage, and if that be our calling, we are obliged to enter the covenant with the intent to be open to life and ready to bear children for the good of the Kingdom. Moses understood this when he gave the Law to the Hebrews. Prohibitions against homosexual acts are written in the Old Testament. The apostles wrote about it in their epistles, and the Church, through a sophisticated understanding of Divine Law, has validated and reaffirmed these eternal teachings.

Untrue. Abram’s wife Sarai was thought to be barren and too old, and yet she bore a son, Isaac, and Abraham became the father of nations through him. St. Elizabeth, Mary’s cousin, was also thought to be too old to bear children, and yet God blessed her and Zechariah with John the Baptist. Nothing is impossible with God. But a couple must put their faith in Him and only perform sex in a way that is open to life and ordered to procreation, whether or not it means that they will have a child as a result.

Amen. Beautifully written. And that is why we named our daughter Elizabeth!

 

[Elizium23]

Good point, humans are on this earth as Breeding stock only !

That is absurd. Sex has two purposes and you should know that.

 

[fix]

Good point, humans are on this earth as Breeding stock only !

That is akin to saying all it takes is luv to make a family.

 

[Baelor]

Bunny,

Only men can produce sperm.

Only women can produce eggs that can be fertilized by sperm.

Would you agree that this is fundamentally true?

That is not quite a syllogistic approach. A sterile woman may not produce viable eggs, etc. Nor can every man produce viable sperm (e.g. the most extreme cases of azoospermia).

Could someone who has had surgery to make infertility actually impossible marry someone else? If the answer is yes, then clearly sex does not require procreation to be morally permissible, and so your justification requires an explicit premise that you have suppressed.

 

[CopticChristian]

That is not quite a syllogistic approach. A sterile woman may not produce viable eggs, etc. Nor can every man produce viable sperm (e.g. the most extreme cases of azoospermia).

Could someone who has had surgery to make infertility actually impossible marry someone else? If the answer is yes, then clearly sex does not require procreation to be morally permissible, and so your justification requires an explicit premise that you have suppressed.

I appreciate your exactitude. Barring any unforseen accidents, inherent deficits, it would be assumed that:

**Only men have the potential to produce sperm.

Only women have the potential to produce eggs that can be fertilized by men that have the potential to produce sperm.

Would you agree that this is fundamentally true? **

Do you agree with this?

 

[Edward_H]

It’s (in the sense that declaring it is somehow normal or acceptable) wrong because it’s based on the principle that it is the “self” that decides what’s right or wrong.

SSA is no different in this regard than bestiality or necrophilia or a whole slew of other sexual “attractions”.

The self is the criterion. It’s a consequence of the “worm of relativism” eating our brain away. We can no longer think clearly or substantially about such matters. So we fall back on self, on emotions, etc.

No longer is it something outside of the self…like natural law, like the physiological complimentarity of our bodies, or Holy Scripture, or Church authority.

The self, the self, the self…and it’s seen in statements like “what’s wrong with two consenting adults…”.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

God created Adam and Eve, Pumpkinbunny, not Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve.

When Noah built his ark he put a male and a female animal of each kind in the ark.

See this is how the natural world works, a male and a female have sex and keep the world alive.

Now whether a male/female couple is infertile, this is not their fault, it just happened that way.

However a female/female couple or a male/male couple cannot EVER produce offspring because their parts don’t fit together.

I hope this helps you understand God’s plan for the world.

 

[Baelor]

I appreciate your exactitude. Barring any unforseen accidents, inherent deficits, it would be assumed that:

Do you agree with this?

I did not dispute the validity of the claim, merely its isolated relevance. It is rather rude to withhold part of your argument in order to school another poster when you could lay out your argument in its entirety and ask where the problem lies. If that post is your entire argument, it is missing substantial components. If it is not, then post the whole thing instead of feeding it to others piecemeal.

 

[PumpkinBunny]

As the member of a so-called sterile couple, I find offense in saying that such couples get a “pass.” Infertility is a horrible, horrible burden and cross to bear. However, even though by medical definition my husband and I are considered infertile, there is still the minute chance that we can get pregnant…if God so wills it.

That can NEVER be said of a homosexual couple.

I am sorry, I did not mean to offend.
But homosexuality is also a difficult cross to bear, yet the same sexual leniency given to sterile couples is not granted to those people.

 

[PumpkinBunny]

Now you’re just playing the dunce.

You and every single mature person knows full that if someone were to, e.g., punch a man so hard that their fist broke through the other person’s flesh and entered their body that this is not a ‘unifying’ or ‘sexual’ act, although it certainly is bodily or physical; you do not actually believe that any puncturing or penetration of the flesh by another person’s is unitive.

A UFC fight is not sex; and it would be horrifying if someone were to describe it as ‘sexual’ because the implication is that abuse and violence are a proper or natural manifestion of human sexuality which, of course, they are not. When we talk about a couple making love there is no thought of abuse or violence. Homosexuality is a perversion of sexuality and is neither unitive nor procreative; we call it -sexual or -sexuality only because it is a perversion of actual sex or sexuality, which does not require qualification. Moreover human sexuality cannot even be reduced exclusively to biological facts: personhood or personality does enter into the picture as male and female or masculine and feminine: there is a natural attraction to the other sex as a mysterious “other”.

I was referring to sterile people, actually, not homosexuals.

 

[fix]

I am sorry, I did not mean to offend.
But homosexuality is also a difficult cross to bear, yet the same sexual leniency given to sterile couples is not granted to those people.

What leniency?

 

[PumpkinBunny]

What leniency?

They are allowed to unify and marry even though it will serve no natural purpose. They can’t fulfill any obligation of procreation (which other posters seem to say is an obligation), but they’re allowed to have a relationship anyway. Seemingly just for their own fulfillment.

 

[fix]

They are allowed to unify and marry even though it will serve no natural purpose. They can’t fulfill any obligation of procreation (which other posters seem to say is an obligation), but they’re allowed to have a relationship anyway. Seemingly just for their own fulfillment.

The marriage is real and the marital act is still ordered as designed. None of that is true in the other case.

 

[davidv]

They are allowed to unify and marry even though it will serve no natural purpose. They can’t fulfill any obligation of procreation (which other posters seem to say is an obligation), but they’re allowed to have a relationship anyway. Seemingly just for their own fulfillment.

Are you equating marriage with the license to have sex?

Marriage is about a whole lot more than that. One the principle purposes of the vocation of marriage is to assist your spouse in getting to heaven. Sex is not a significant contributor in doing so.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

They are allowed to unify and marry even though it will serve no natural purpose. They can’t fulfill any obligation of procreation (which other posters seem to say is an obligation), but they’re allowed to have a relationship anyway. Seemingly just for their own fulfillment.

In the Catholic Church, infertility is not a barrier to marriage, but impotence is. If the couple cannot consummate their marriage, the marriage is not valid.

Gay people are not able to consummate a marriage, because they do not have the correct body parts.

 

[PumpkinBunny]

In the Catholic Church, infertility is not a barrier to marriage, but impotence is. If the couple cannot consummate their marriage, the marriage is not valid.

Gay people are not able to consummate a marriage, because they do not have the correct body parts.

So only marriages which are consummated between a man and a woman are valid? What about marriages which aren’t consummated?

I know Joseph and Mary never consummated theirs, yet they were still married in the eyes of their culture and of God.

I’ve also read stories of saints who would enter into “sexless marriages”. It was an older man who would take a younger woman into his protection to give her a better life, such as if he were wealthy but had no heirs. Were these marriages invalid?

 

[PumpkinBunny]

Are you equating marriage with the license to have sex?

Marriage is about a whole lot more than that. One the principle purposes of the vocation of marriage is to assist your spouse in getting to heaven. Sex is not a significant contributor in doing so.

Then why does the type of sex matter? I don’t understand what other posters are saying. Some seem to be saying that procreation is necessary. Other seem to be saying that procreation isn’t necessary, only the situation which would allow procreation if both spouses were healthy. But that doesn’t makes sense to me.

What is the difference between a couple who can’t have children due to permanent ailment, and a couple who can’t have children due to their sex? The end result is the same from a practical standpoint.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

So only marriages which are consummated between a man and a woman are valid? What about marriages which aren’t consummated?

I know Joseph and Mary never consummated theirs, yet they were still married in the eyes of their culture and of God.

I’ve also read stories of saints who would enter into “sexless marriages”. It was an older man who would take a younger woman into his protection to give her a better life, such as if he were wealthy but had no heirs. Were these marriages invalid?

How can two women or two men consummate a marriage? It’s impossible!!!

The Virgin Mary is a special case. I don’t know what to say about that, except she was a virgin and the mother of GOD!

I don’t know what you are talking about in regard to sexless marriages. In any case,
Catholic canon law defines a marriage as consummated when the “spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.”

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Then why does the type of sex matter? I don’t understand what other posters are saying. Some seem to be saying that procreation is necessary. Other seem to be saying that procreation isn’t necessary, only the situation which would allow procreation if both spouses were healthy. But that doesn’t makes sense to me.

What is the difference between a couple who can’t have children due to permanent ailment, and a couple who can’t have children due to their sex? The end result is the same from a practical standpoint.

You obviously are not listening and have some huge gay agenda.

 

[davidv]

So only marriages which are consummated between a man and a woman are valid? What about marriages which aren’t consummated?

1640 Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.146

I know Joseph and Mary never consummated theirs, yet they were still married in the eyes of their culture and of God.

I’ve also read stories of saints who would enter into “sexless marriages”. It was an older man who would take a younger woman into his protection to give her a better life, such as if he were wealthy but had no heirs. Were these marriages invalid?

Exceptions don’t make the rule.