tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1669762298855511295.post1698074737930786811..comments2023-08-10T08:24:08.460-06:00Comments on Mama Needs Coffee: Gay As I Wanna Be ...Jennyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07923751596148085363noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1669762298855511295.post-44839385940069666402010-05-12T13:45:52.429-06:002010-05-12T13:45:52.429-06:00Dear Jenny,
I appreciate your comment and its vali...Dear Jenny,<br />I appreciate your comment and its validity. In connection with this topic, I therefore also am struggling with the purpose of marriage. I know you recently got married (congrats!) and am engaged myself. I get hung up on the emphasis that is put on procreation in the marriage. Yes, it's important, but hypothetically.. what if a couple didn't want to have children..or at least not right away? (with overpopulation and unprepared parents... the idea of "be fruitful and mulitply" isn't exactly applicable to today's situations) Should they not be married then? Because to avoid children would be to not have sex, idealistically. And to not have sex would be not consummating the marriage. Therefore, this hermeneutical circle seems to tell me that to get married means having children, and if your goal isn't to have children, then you shouldn't get married. So now, marriage = children, and visa versa? What then, is the purpose of getting married if you cannot just love each other as Christ loved us? I feel like this is a statement homosexuals would attest to, because not all relations want to purposefully procreate, especially if the the context for raising their children is not yet primed. These are hypothetical questions, but as someone getting married, they have huge weight. I think too many people don't stop to question the institution to which they are entering before they do, just because it's a societal norm.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />AnnonymousAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1669762298855511295.post-64142496295547142962010-05-12T12:45:07.206-06:002010-05-12T12:45:07.206-06:00Dear anonymous,
Thanks for your insightful commen...Dear anonymous,<br /><br />Thanks for your insightful comments. You are correct in pointing out the scriptural basis for much of what the Church teaches, though unlike other Christian denominations who claim that "it's true because it's in the Bible" we acknowledge that "it's in the Bible because it's true." That's where the canon of Scripture originated: apostolic discernment and consensus that,"yes, this is God's word, and therefore true... and shall therefore be included in the canon of Scripture."<br /><br />Too many Christians - including many Catholics - put the cart before the horse and insist that Biblical reference is the standard of truth ... yes, it is... but what is true was true before it's inclusion in Sacred Scripture, and not only because of it's inclusion - make sense?<br /><br />Your questions about homosexuality are quite valid too, in our society which teaches that tolerance is actually acceptance, and which dismisses the idea of absolutes - in the moral realm or elsewhere - as archaic. <br /><br />The Church's stance on homosexual behavior (note: the behavior, or the action, being the locus of the sin, and not the desire itself, nor the person suffering the attraction) stems from the reality that we as human persons are created in God's image to love as He loves: totally, faithfully and fruitfully.<br /><br />All moral and theological arguments aside, the stark biological reality is this: homosexual "love" can never be fruitful, and so it cannot rightly be called love. <br /><br />The Church isn't trying to prevent people who struggle with same sex attraction from finding fulfillment/happiness/companionship ... she (the Church) is simply unable to teach something that is false. She will never recognize the validity of homosexual "marriage" because no such thing exists. <br /><br />Marriage is, by nature, the permanent, fruitful union of two persons: a man and a woman, united in sacramental purpose for the begetting and education of God's children and for the mutual sanctification of each other. The Church won't change her stance on this because she can't. She didn't create it - He did.<br /><br />We exist to be in communion with one another - to give and receive love so fully, so completely, that in the giving and receiving an entire other person may come into existence... much the way the Holy Spirit, though co eternal with the Father and the Son, is nonetheless an outpouring of the Father's love for the Son, received and returned with such perfection that the love, in essence, becomes an "Other." This Trinitarian exchange of love is mirrored - dimly - in the conjugal act between husband and wife, whose love can also incarnate, or make physical, the reality of their spousal love.<br /><br />Kinda heady stuff for a comments section, but it is what we profess to believe as Catholics, and not simply because it is in the Bible or because it is socially acceptable at some juncture in history.Jennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923751596148085363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1669762298855511295.post-29944891079125663642010-05-11T20:50:25.106-06:002010-05-11T20:50:25.106-06:00I love your blog. You are intelligent and do your ...I love your blog. You are intelligent and do your research, and you are not afraid to tackle important issues. To be practicing moral beings means to get your hands dirty (refer to the book "Sex, Greed, and Dirt") and delve into these issues.<br /><br />I too am Catholic, but have lately had a hard time trying to fully see the side that the Church stands on in regards to homosexuality. I want to be persuaded, but I feel there are so many glitches to the argument.<br /><br />First off, the natural law argument fails to coherently support the argument that homosexuality is wrong, because, while "we" Catholics would argue that it's not natural because "slot a doesn't fit into slot b" and because "you can't produce offspring naturally any other way".. the opposing view would argue that "the differentiation of genetics has led to people to be attracted to their own sex, and therefore this is natural because it's a natural instinct caused by genetics." Therefore, in most arguments using natural law, the two sides either contradict or discredit the other, nixing it as a reliable source to draw conclusions from. <br /><br />My second issue is that I guess I never realized how scripturally based the Church is.. what with the reasoning for only men being allowed to be priests and homosexuality being wrong. The part that gets me on the homosexuality is that most of the scriptural quotes summarize to say that "man shall not lie with man as they would with a woman." In the historical context of reading this quote, one would know that at this time, many men had concubines and slaves, generally women. These women were looked at is sexual property. And because their society was primarily patriarchal, it was demeaning for a man to appear or act as a woman, because of women's low status. Therefore, in these scriptural quotes, the quote lifts up the notion that "men" shouldn't lie with other "men" because it would be beneath them to assume the role of a woman. This says nothing to me about why God doesn't allow this, or anything else. Instead it says to me that this is the way society looked at it during this time, and thus is reflected in the scripture.<br /><br />I'm on the fence with the issue of homosexuality, and recognize that it's important to research any ethical issue before forming a moral conclusion. As a practicing Catholic, I'm finding it hard to believe in the Churches reasonings when the arguments seem as narrow minded as they do, and lack the support to clearly define why homosexuals cannot commit themselves to a loving relationship with another person, perhaps with the same intent as a married couple would. <br /><br />Any thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1669762298855511295.post-86924936489067307472010-04-12T20:34:19.921-06:002010-04-12T20:34:19.921-06:00I absolutely love your blog. Thank you so much fo...I absolutely love your blog. Thank you so much for writing what you do and for writing it so extremely well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1669762298855511295.post-15739849486458396172010-03-13T11:57:15.005-07:002010-03-13T11:57:15.005-07:00Sorry Bob, unpublishable comment there...
Bye the...Sorry Bob, unpublishable comment there...<br /><br />Bye the way, I'm sure you can recognize that homosexuality and pedophilia, while not always manifest in the same individual, are nonetheless behavioral fruits of the same tree, sprung from the same "if it feels good, do it" mentality.<br /><br />We define our own reality, right?Jennyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07923751596148085363noreply@blogger.com