Natural Law
I assert in the Equal Marriage debate that heterosexual marriage is in no way affected by recognition of gay marriage: not individually, and not as a whole. But perhaps Flavius’s is. He asserts it will be damaged by the statutes on equal marriage. How might that be?
Part of the problem is that we use words differently. He says that heterosexual sex is “natural”, and I agree. It bonds two people together, and may have the potential for conception. I say homosexual sex is natural. He says, “You can’t seriously believe that it’s natural for a man’s sex organ to be inserted in another man’s rectum?” and I hear the distaste in his words. He finds the thought horrible, harmful, and unnatural.
Well, yes, I do, as it fulfils the purpose of sex to bond people, and it happens. He also thinks that people hurting each other or themselves is unnatural, which begins to show what “natural” might mean to him: in accordance with God’s purposes for humanity, in accordance with our good. But I still see the good which comes from two gay people bonded together as a couple, which he does not see.
How will the redefinition of marriage hurt him, individually? Fiddling with marriage and the family with a redefinition will create chaos: a host of confusing new laws to accommodate the new definitions, the intrusion further of the State into the affairs of the Church, and the dissolution of familial bonds as an entire generation will grow up with the idea that something as basic and immutable as the family can be arbitrarily redefined at will.
That is, people will not have his moral boundaries. Gay men will not try to marry women in an attempt to make themselves straight; instead, they will find partners they can love physically as well as in friendship. I think that benefits them, and those gay men who have tried marrying women then formed gay relationships agree. I think it is “natural” in his sense, in accordance with God’s will for our good.
How might it hurt him, then? This is my attempt, rather than his: he might meet people who disagree with him. He might see gay couples, and people- even Catholics- who believe that they are properly married. His moral view will be challenged. This will cause him such distress that he cannot bear it.
Or, he genuinely cannot conceive that others might see the Good differently from how he sees it, let alone that they might have as much right to decide what is good for them. Humanity finds Good by trial and error- we have tried Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and it is not a Good end, and we know that now. To me, Good and Truth are indeed one and eternal, but we cannot know them, only grope towards them. So his idolatry of his Magisterium prevents him from making any progress towards knowing what is truly Good.
Hmmmmm! We have been here before, methinks. Interesting, that your writer suggests that the intrusion of the State into the affairs of the Church is undesirable. Is that what happens, if marriage between two persons of the same sex is de-punified by the State? I rather think that the State is sending out a very important message, that the Church should be no hiding place for discriminatory practices. Interesting, too, that whenever homosexual sex is under discussion, it is always with the most prurient aspects in close focus. Forget consensus and focus on force and “un-natural acts” whatever that is supposed to imply. What about lesbian sex? And what about love?
Does Christ not invite us to love our neighbours as ourselves? Does Christ look into other people’s sex lives and judge them better or worse? That would be unloving, judgemental. Interesting, that in the debate with the “pro-sexual” lobby, the paramout virtues of loving our neighbour and resisting judgement lest we be judged are overlooked, and obscure passages from the bible are touted as an excuse for intolerance….here we go again.
Clare, I really think you should think about a career in writing. I am sure there are some magazines etc that would be very happy with regular contributions of this calibre and interest.
Ann XX
Writing for money is something I am considering, how I might do that. Thank you for your encouragement.
So what is it called when heterosexual couples have the same sexual desires and share their bodies in all ways as considered “homosexual acts.” This is where the naming issue keeps frustrating me. It’s a waste of energy to pay attention to naming and blaming. I also would love to see more posts from the positive people who support your search for acceptance. I think that the statement “bad press is good press” might be considered in your writing. You do give a voice even though you object to the sentiment of so many negative people. Tell me more stories about the leaders who believe in a free loving and supportive community environment. I know they are out there.
“Be the change you wish to see in the world.” Gandhi
love.
That is something I think about. I do not like the facebook news from TS friends, who publicise articles about some silly priest or other who thinks equal marriage is a bad thing. However, I like to think I am answering them. I do this for me, you know, as well as for any readers: like watching a horror film, I look at the nasties in a safe environment, and answer them, and call them fools. I seek to desensitise myself from them, so they hold no more fear for me. Another blogger wrote how pitiable some cardinal or other was, in his rage and hate, and another quoted one ad longum, saying he sought to let the man show what a fool he was, simply by letting him be heard.
Yes, I like the idea of positive stories. Perhaps posts on how straights welcome equal marriage legislation. Lots do. Equality wins. And- some of my posts are positive.
Hello dearest! and CONGRATUALTIONS!!! YOU have been been bestowed the Star Award-Blogger of the Year 2012 see the link and follow the instructions….http://cherryberrylemonlime.wordpress.com/2013/01/05/5541/
Thank you. I have two stars now, I will do a post if I get the six.
You are so very welcome. Happy new 2013