Why Homosexual Unions are Wrong

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…

I agree with you:o ‘anyone should know this is false’ ? problem with your statement is so many are not Catholic or not even Christian:( you must realize that anyone/everyone does not share our opinion on the gay lifestyle.My friend…we are outnumbered and it is not going to get any better.Many people despise Catholics and think we are mean spirited bigots as to not be on board with the gay agenda.A child does indeed need a mother and a father.I have complete faith in Catholic doctrine,I have 100% faith in the Catholic catechism, are you familiar with the Catholic catechism? it is my reference for guidance in life:)

Spot on HabemusFrancis! :thumbsup:
People who want to practice homosexual behaviour (or any other carnal desire) need to be mindful that their actions are an example to children.

Well kudos for thinking about it in such a worldy perspective (and I agree with your point) but this isn’t why the church is against it. The simple answer is, the church’s stance on such unions is established in divinely inspired scripture and is clear cut. It can never change. Every other Christian church which was founded by man could change to accept it but our divinely founded church could never and will never change this or anything else to suit the politics of the day.

This. Also, the main reason we should be against it is out of love for our friends, many of whom do great damage to their souls by engaging in same-sex physicality! Even ignoring psycho-social reasons such as establishing non-ideal families, etc., the danger and damage to the souls of those LGB people who act on their SSAs should alone warrant our zeal in protecting them from themselves, at the very least.

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?

That pretty much sums it up. It is a cultural change that is negative in the long run regardless of one’s spiritual view of the matter.

Common sense should dictate this. Right from the get go a child learns from what s/he sees.

This is irrelevant, not thought provoking, nor worth wasting any effort thinking about. The stance on homosexuality is Divinely commanded through scripture and shall never change. If you don’t get this point, you’ll never understand it.

It is not possible.

Children have the right to be conceived naturally as a gift from God through sexual union. Sometimes this right is denied them through sin. That does not mean we encourage alternative means to conceive. Children are not a commodity.

Only a man and a woman can conceive a child naturally. It is fitting that these two people raise the child together. Sometimes, circumstances will arise that make a child’s biological parents unfit to raise. So an alternative must be found that as closely resembles the ideal as is possible - a mother and a father.

You’re right that “traditional” does not necessarily mean “better,” but this is biology. There’s a reason conception works the way it does, and fiddling with it just because we can doesn’t mean the biology is meaningless.

I believe you are right on the mark here, well said. :clapping:

Thank you HabemusFrancis.

“Common sense” is supposed to be intuitive and understood implicitly. If someone is honestly asking for the answer to a question, then by definition the answer cannot be “common sense”.

This is irrelevant, not thought provoking, nor worth wasting any effort thinking about.

Actually it is relevant. As you can see, it helped reveal your true justification for hating homosexual behavior, as seen below:

The stance on homosexuality is Divinely commanded through scripture and shall never change. If you don’t get this point, you’ll never understand it.

Indeed, I cannot argue against faith. But I will comment on it. It seems dangerous to me to prohibit entire lifestyles simply because you have “faith” in an ideology. If you’re going to enforce certain lifestyles over others, you should have good, strong evidence for why it ought to be done. So far you’ve given me only the excuses of “faith” and “common sense”. You’ve offered zero evidence that gay couples can’t be competent parents.

An astute observation. That is why I labeled it “hypothetical”. :stuck_out_tongue:

Children are not a commodity.

Okay, clearly the purpose of my hypothetical scenario wasn’t understood, so I’ll explain. There are basically 3 possible answers Christians give to explain their attitude toward gay parenting. 1) Children need both masculine and feminine roles to look up to as they mature. 2) Only a man and woman can produce a child, therefore only a man and woman should raise one. 3) There is no reason other than that it is divinely commanded that gays shan’t parent. Servus opted for (3). An answer to my hypothetical question would either affirm (2) or rule it out as a possibility. Based on your response below, you seem to agree with (2). So my question, although hypothetical, seems to have done the trick.

Only a man and a woman can conceive a child naturally. It is fitting that these two people raise the child together.

I promise you that this question is relevant in spite of how strange it appears: Do you think it is morally wrong to own a pet?

So an alternative must be found that as closely resembles the ideal as is possible - a mother and a father.

Nature imparts in us instincts that are not always a good basis for morality. For example, if I acted only on my carnivorous instincts, I would devour my own pets. The fact that nature is amoral makes since in light of the theory of evolution–nature recommends the most economical way to survive, not necessarily what is most moral. Of course, it’s not a safe assumption that people on these forums will always believe in evolution.

It’s not simply about who is raising them, it’s about using a third party to intentionaly bring a child into this world with the absolute intention to deprive them of their biological mother or father when it’s done in no way to benefit the child. I believe that’s a form of child abuse.

The main difference I believe is in the creation of the child, one is being concieved with the intention of depriving them of their biological parents, and when it comes to adoption they have already been concieved. Adoption is sometimes necessary, but not ideal and I believe it would be just as bad for someone to concieve with the intention to give their child up for adoption.

Sometimes these “less than ideal circumstances” may arise and are necessary, but I worry when people say things like “I don’t see any difference between them” I worry when “less than Ideal” becomes the norm and treated as no different to the “ideal.”

There are many who fail to live up to the ideal family (of a healthy biological mother and father raising their children they concieved together) in todays society and other times **** happens where one or both have died, but instead of trying to reach it, what worrys me is when people try to lower the bar, or claim that less than ideal circumstances are just as good, that kind of reasoning I believe is gravely dangerous.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Oreoracle, what is the purpose of racial or social integration? Isn’t it to assimilate different cultures into one?

Yet you want to sexually segregate children. Something here seems a little unscrupulous -as if there is some agenda, because liberal politics don’t all add up equally. :confused:

Just imagine the social flaws involved in being raised by two ‘parents’ of the same sex. It’s abusive, unorthodox, unnecessary and deranged.

You should add sexual segregation to that list. During the first three years of life is the period where humans develop essential behavioral and social skills that will carry on throughout their entire lives.

So it’s not that they need masculine and feminine role models -it’s that they need to assimilate with masculinity and femininity during the most crucial years for proper social development. A period with little to no outside intervention.

The natural sexual function of a human being is to procreate. This is not a possible outcome when a human being engages in sexual behavior solely for a selfish outcome of producing a momentary and fleeting “feeling” of pleasure regardless of gender or aberrant proclivity of any person who is “using” the sexual function for a solely selfish and self-serving motive. I encourage you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church from cover to cover in order to fully understand the love of God and the dignity of each human person which should not be defiled, denigrated, or used by another for selfish motives. If you did take the time and effort to read what the Church teaches, you may come to a much clearer understanding of the truth. We are each made in the image and likeness of God and God invites us to participate in His divine life for all eternity.

I think the reason is not tradition. The reason is nature, and its reflection in society. Men and women are inherently different, but complementary. We can not understand men without comparing them to women, and vice versa. In society and culture, the expectations for men and for women differ in their behavior, values, attitudes etc.

It is highly desirable to raise children with a male and female parent because parents are the primary role models for children. A child can only understand what it is to be male or female by comparing male and female, and this will be done foremost in the home.

I think this is a very sensible point, and one which most people will readily understand once it is explained a little further.

A pitfall is that a high percentage of children are born outside of marriage. Over 40% births in the US last year were to unmarried mothers. Moreover, a hefty percentage (35-40%) of those births to single women were deliberately planned. Many women consider single parenthood to be not only workable, but reasonable as well. These are families which will not have a father in the home, at least not the same man, during childhood.

Same-sex marriage can be opposed without addressing the issue of the high rate of births outside of marriage. However, if gay marriage is to be criticized for its lack of a male and female parent, the argument will be more compelling if we simultaneously work to reduce the births to single women. Granted, doing the later is far more difficult, since it involves changing cultural attitudes and perceptions.

Some may see that as the purpose, but I don’t. The reason we don’t segregate races is because there’s simply no reason why having different skin color merits separation.

The same is true for sexes. Males have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome, and females have two X chromosomes. That is the difference between men and women. Other biological differences are derived from this. But the usual differences that we ascribe to the sexes, like personalities, predispositions, roles, etc., are manufactured by society. In a word, they aren’t real, or at least they aren’t necessary. It makes no sense to segregate the sexes unless their biology is relevant. An example of where segregation would be justified is in the field of medicine; men and women sometimes need different medical treatments due to biological differences.

Yet you want to sexually segregate children.

What does “sexual segregation” mean? I have been arguing for something that sounds closer to the opposite of that. I am proposing that we disregard sex unless it’s relevant.

Just imagine the social flaws involved in being raised by two ‘parents’ of the same sex. It’s abusive, unorthodox, unnecessary and deranged.

Please enlighten me as to what these “social flaws” are. You act as if there are so many, so it should be no problem for you to provide just one bit of concrete evidence on the matter. And yet, no one has volunteered this information. All I’ve heard thus far is that it’s “common sense” or that I should “just imagine” the flaws or that there are no flaws, but we are divinely commanded to act as if there are. Not one shred of evidence to speak of.

Why is our current conception of “masculinity” and “femininity” essential? You do know that those concepts differ from culture to culture, right? So clearly they aren’t essential.

So it’s not that they need masculine and feminine role models -it’s that they need to assimilate with masculinity and femininity during the most crucial years for proper social development. A period with little to no outside intervention.

If you view what is “proper” from the lens of your own culture, you will naturally be biased.

False. As I said, the only concrete difference between men and women, which does not vary from culture to culture, is their genetics. One can therefore grasp what a male is without reference to a female.

It is not useful to teach a child, for example, that women are typically more submissive than men. It is true in most cases, but it is not necessary–it is conceivable that we could have a society in which the opposite is the case. Genetic differences are the only necessary differences.

Your argument is based on the notion of deprivation, but “deprivation” is only seen as a bad thing because of connotations. If I name my child Joseph, I deprive him of being called Jeffrey. Everything sounds bad if you use that kind of language. :shrug:

The semantics aside, your argument has another flaw: If the straight couple isn’t raising a child, they obviously didn’t want the child. The child isn’t being “deprived” of anything. He is being given an opportunity to be raised by parents who do want him.

My point wasn’t that all cultures have a universal role for men and women. My point is that within any culture or society, the behavior, attitudes, values etc. which are expected of men and women are defined in relation to each other. Granted, individuals can choose to deviate from the standard expectations within a culture, but they will often receive criticism for being unmanly or for being mannish.

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.