Newsweek Cover: 'The First Gay President'

[CMatt25]

Originally Posted by rlg94086

Well, I guarantee you the Church understands this. It's in the Catechism, so most of your faithful Catholics who oppose gay "marriage" and civil unions, as the Church also teaches, are very familiar that the genesis of same sex attraction are unknown.

So in that case it sounds like God could have created people with SS attraction being natural for them and yet it's ok to discriminate against them by not even allowing them civil unions and to tell them their acts are disordered.

[rlg94086]

Originally Posted by CMatt25

So in that case it sounds like God could have created people with SS attraction being natural for them and yet it's ok to discriminate against them by not even allowing them civil unions and to tell them their acts are disordered.

That is correct. The fact that they are born with or developed (the genesis is unknown) an attraction to disordered acts is a trial they must bear, and it does not mean that they should be allowed to "marry." In fact, it is impossible for them to do so, since marriage is unitive and procreative. They are incapable of a conjugal union, therefore they are incapable of marriage.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...ersons_en.html

10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.

11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.

13. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homo- sexuality (cf. no. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

14. The “sexual orientation” of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual's sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.

Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be “either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing” (cf. no. 3), and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to “manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws” (cf. no. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that “any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people... are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” (cf. no. 9).

In addition, there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law.

15. Since in the assessment of proposed legislation uppermost concern should be given to the responsibility to defend and promote family life (cf. no. 17), strict attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures. How would they affect adoption or foster care? Would they protect homosexual acts, public or private? Do they confer equivalent family status on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the homosexual partner to the privileges of employment which could include such things as “family” participation in the health benefits given to employees (cf. no. 9)?

16. Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to Church organizations and institutions. The Church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. no. 17).

[TarkanAttila]

Very good, rlg. In times past, marriage had little to do with expressing love, at least as a primary function.

Marriage was and is, more of less, a lifetime relationship of sharing work, payments, and responsibilities, and raising children to become adult members of society. And since a man and a woman are the only ones who can produce children together, naturally "gay marriage" never existed, and never can, really, as it will always take the intervention of a third party - be it a sperm donor or a surrogate mother - to produce a child for a gay relationship.

To this day, this primary function of marriage is the main reason why the government acknowledged it in the first place - because raising many upstanding children means, of course, a wealthier, happier, more ordered society. Now, gay couples can raise children, and perhaps not too badly, either. But ever more they promote the idea that a family is something you have the right to have or not to have, and not the responsibility (same goes with IVF, and indeed contraception and abortion). It's a problem.