The homosexual state of mind: Marriage isn't about a man & woman but love & love

We all heard this almost misguided and very secular broad logic from the gay community. But I feel that in some way they are only “Scratching the surface” on the topic of marriage and it’s sacred nature. How can I tackle this whole idea that marriage is between “love and love” without being judgmental or mean but at the same time showing it’s weakness on describing the courtship of marriage?

Redeeming the Rainbow

A comprehensive but easy-to-understand textbook for Christians and other defenders of God’s design for family and society which explains in detail 1) the nature, causes and characteristics of homosexual dysfunction and militancy, 2) the history, philosophy, goals, methods and strategies of the global “gay” movement, 3) the urgent, escalating and imminent danger this movement represents to all aspects of Christian civilization throughout the world, and 4) specific, practical principles for responding to each of the many areas of “gay” aggression – all firmly grounded in and supported by both Scripture and non-religious logical analysis, documentation and terminology.

  1. See some ideas here: fralfonse.blogspot.com/2012/07/mt-828-34-when-pigs-fly.html

  2. Children raised in homosexual unions do not have good outcomes; they are vulnerable and deserve our protection. Children have a right to identify with the parent of their own sex, and by accepted by the parent of the other sex.

Google for information on Dr. Mark Regnerus’ (University of Texas at Austin) recent study on the outcomes of children raised in homosexual unions. There are some articles about it on catholicvote.org and elsewhere.

In part, the gays are right.

When any human being is forever loyal and dedicated to the well-being of another human being, and sticks with them, and is supportive and encouraging of them, and puts up with all their B.S. and all their imperfections that drive other people crazy, that IS LOVE, that is admirable, that is virtuous, that is worthy of honor and respect by us.

Yet, as I see it, very few homosexuals are ever in such relationships, and very few will be even if homosexual civil marriage becomes widespread. Gay men especially are rarely bonded for life, as far as I can see. A few. But it is very rare. It is more common among lesbians.

Yet, the whole gay marriage advocacy program is really all about one thing: NORMALIZING gay relationships and gay sex. They aren’t stupid. It is working. They are winning, to a very large extent.

Sex is not love. Sex is just getting a release of sexual tension, or a fulfillment of sexual appetite. It is like a crazing for a hamburger or a cold beer. Sex is just sex. It is not really admirable by itself, no even heterosexual sex. Yet, sex between a man and woman in the bounds of till-death-do-us-part matrimony is sort of sacrilized by the bond the public and permanent promise of mutual welfare and fidelity.

I think we can admire when anyone shows loyalty and support and fidelity towards any other person, even if this is occurring in a gay “partnership,” and at the same time maintain the teaching of the Church against gay sexual activity. I think we need to do this, otherwise we are denying the Church’s teaching on agape love.

They are winning what? The media propaganda machine and a handful of judges and politicians, plus a few corporate executives?

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

Thank you, buffalo.

Peace,
Ed

Well, their is nothing wrong with loving another guy. It’s just when you introduce sex into the equation or any other kind of relation branched in that category which makes it wrong.

Except that the study, by Mark Regenerus, doesn’t do what you claim. It wasn’t comparing children in gay households with children in heterosexual households. Even Regenerus admits that there is valid criticism of his methodology.

Regenerus simply asked if a child had lived with two parents, either one of whom had had an extramarital association with someone of the same sex. Of 15,000 adults, do you know how many he discovered had been brought up for the whole of their childhood in a gay relationship? Two.

“There are some valid criticisms that are being made, such as the measurement decision on who should be called a lesbian mother in this study,” Regnerus said, adding it’s true, he did not know that relationship. “People might say that’s irresponsible to do this study without all these stable lesbian couples in the study,” he said, adding the random sampling only found two out of the 175 children who said they lived in a home with both same-sex parents throughout all 18 years. "I would have been happy to compare them but they did not exist in large enough numbers.

Read more The Faults of Mark Regnerus’s Gay-Parenting Study : The New Yorker

“…one of the key methodological criticisms circulating is that–basically–in a population-based sample, I haven’t really evaluated how the adult children of stably-intact coupled self-identified lesbians have fared. Right? Right. And I’m telling you that it cannot be feasibly accomplished”.

I don’t presume that either they or their parents would confidently call their parent gay or lesbian (or something else).

Box Turtle Bulletin Overview: Three Responses to Mark Regnerus?s Study of Children of Parents In Same-Sex Relationships

(Note: this was written and posted by me elsewhere recently and I have copied and pasted it. I just wouldn’'t want anyone to think I’d lifted someone else’s words on the subject).

There are all kinds of love: mother-child love, sibling love, family love, the love of friends, the love of a community of religious. But marriage requires marital love. And marital love requires sexual complementarity. Marital love requires the capacity to consummate the marital act. It takes opposite sex couples to do that. Same sex couples cannot by nature engage in marital love. Marital love, if we dig deeper, also requires fidelity, permanence, and openness to life. But at its essence is sexual complementarity. This is not rocket science. It’s the way we are made.

you mean eros, agape, philia and storge right?

Well, I suppose so. My main point is that marital love is impossible for same sex couples. Other types of love are possible, but not marital love. Marital love is consummated in a conjugal act for which sexual complementarity is essential. That’s why impotence is an impediment to marriage, while infertility is not.

You do realize that love is not a requirement for marriage according to canon law right?

You may have noticed some other ways that we are made that don’t really tie in with your idea of compatibility.

A woman ovulates just once a month. With just one egg so she can produce one child. When she conceives, she’s out of the production line for about a year.

Men produce more sperm than you could count every second of the day. That’s because we’re never out of the production line and why we feel like sex all the time. If we impregnate one woman, the production line goes on and we are made – literally made, to go on and impregnate as many as we can.

Our fertility goes on many years after a woman has reached a point where she cannot conceive. That’s because we are made, literally made, to keep on producing offspring without any regard for the woman we share our cave/hut/apartment.

Does that sound like we’re in any way compatible for lifetime fidelity, Jim?

Of course. And yet, one has to wonder what “love” means to those who think it is essential to marriage. I think in many cases, love was more abundantly present in arranged marriages than it is in marriages based only on feelings–i.e., being “in love.”

True love is abiding–it is permanent and secure, and does not depend on the ability to maintain a particular emotional state. Surprisingly though, an abiding commitment to another’s welfare elicits more loving feelings than depending on feelings first.

Yes, it does. As you note, we are designed for heterosexual relations. Human children need care for a long time. They need a mom and a dad; that implies a need for permanence and fidelity. It’s true that many children have not experienced that in their lives in the last few generations. That’s because of the decline of marriage and of the culture. But go back a few generations and it was the norm. There is no greater happiness in this life than marital love expressed in permanence, fidelity, and openness to life.

Maybe it would be better to say “temporarily” raised by rather than “raised by.” I didn’t say “households.”

But the fact that only two had been brought up for the whole of their childhood in a gay relationship underscores the general family instability that Regnerus is emphasizing. Besides those two, there were 163 children whose mothers had same-sex relationships at some point, and 73 children whose fathers had same-sex relationships at some point. It seems that an attempt was made to establish lasting unions in these cases, but they didn’t last.

Dawn Stefanowicz was raised by a gay father. Here is an interview she gave to CWR:

catholicworldreport.com/Item/1448/raised_under_the_glbt_umbrella.aspx
Dawn Stefanowicz

C’mon, Jim. If you’re saying that people should be married just because they’re sexually compatible - we’re built that way, then why should we stay together for a lifetime? Because we certainly weren’t ‘designed’ that way.

Ah well, I think that we are designed that way. But I don’t expect to convince you on an Internet forum. The institution of marriage has undergone such severe devolution in the past 50 years that it would hardly be recognizable to many who came before. The widespread acceptance of contraception, followed by the sexual revolution, replaced fidelity and permanence with serial monogamy. I don’t know that marriage can survive much longer, and if it falls, so does our civilization. Back when I got married, the Catholic rite of marriage had a little exhortation that was spoken by the priest just before the couple exchanged vows. Part of it went like this:

“This union, then, is most serious, because it will bind you together for life in a
relationship so close and so intimate, that it will profoundly influence your whole
future, That future, with its hopes and disappointments, its successes and its failures,
its pleasures and its pains, its joys and its sorrows, is hidden from your eyes. You
know that these elements are mingled in every life, and are to be expected in your
own. And so not knowing what is before you, you take each other for better or for
worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death.
Truly, then, these words are most serious. It is a beautiful tribute to your undoubted
faith in each other, that recognizing their full import, you are, nevertheless, so willing
and ready to pronounce them.”
Source

Actually, I don’t know that anyone is so willing to pronounce them, or at least to mean them, anymore, and that is a tragedy. I hope that marriage makes a comeback, because I suspect it is the only thing which will ultimately save our society.

This confusion about love is the product of the oversexed hippie culture of the 1960’s. Homosexual activists and the misguided who support their behavior need to realize that one doesn’t have to have sex with someone to love them as a friend. There are a lot of people that I love more than myself who I don’t have sex with, so it is possible.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.