Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > Philosophy and Thought > The Catholic Church and G.ay Marriage

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

The Catholic Church and G.ay Marriage

Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 19, 2016 at 10:06 am

Stuntddude:
It's true, g.ay couples can have children using adoption or certain medical means. These medical means, however, are immoral because they seperate procreation from the marital act. See, the problem isn't so much that g.ay couples can't bear children as that they aren't made to have children with one another. It's not just a bodily thing - it's also spiritual. Man and woman compliment each other in lots of ways, not just in their bodies.
Give me one example of hom.ose.xuality occurring in nature. I know sometimes animals act in ways that appear g.ay - I've seen it myself - but that doesn't really count, because animals are irrational creatures and can get carried away in the excitement of the moment. Besides, you won't see two girl dogs getting together and raising puppies. Ever.
Regarding your last point about human bodies, I have no idea what you're trying to say and I don't think I want to know.
I'm really very sorry if I was uncharitable. I guess I was pretty angry when I wrote that. Please forgive me.
 
 
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Quantum1.0 replied...
Mar. 19, 2016 at 2:24 pm

stuntddude:
 
"I'm more chill now than I used to be. I think I deserve some credit :P"
 
Fair enough, I agree with that. Credit given :P

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
MorganRF replied...
Mar. 20, 2016 at 1:17 pm

It is not immoral for people to get preg.nant through medical help, that's just what the Catholic Church wants you to believe.
I agree with Admin. While a man and women are able to have children biologically, it isn't OK to tell people they can't get married just because they can't. It's unfair, and it's the exact opposite of what we're trying to work for in society

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 20, 2016 at 3:41 pm

Well, it depends on what kind of medical help. Of course not all medical help is immoral. :) Here's what my Catechism says on the matter: "All assistance in c.conceiving a child through research and medicine must stop when the common bond of parenthood is loosened and destroyed by the intrusion of a third person or when c.onception becomes a technological act outside of s.exual union in marriage." So, s.urrogate motherhood, etc., is unacceptable.
Of COURSE two people who are unable to have children biologically are able to get married - did I ever say otherwise? :)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Mar. 20, 2016 at 4:29 pm

"Of COURSE two people who are unable to have children biologically are able to get married - did I ever say otherwise?"
 
It's the clear logical conclusion of your beliefs about the purpose of marriage, so yeah, you pretty much did.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Mar. 20, 2016 at 4:55 pm

I agree with MorganRF- in this day and age, we fight for equal rights, whether it's for every race to be equal, or both genders to be equal, or every se.xuality to be equal. I am not Catholic, so I'm not entirely well-educated on every single view of the Catholic church, but I am Christian (Methodist).
I know what the Bible says. I know I'll probably face some blowback here for saying this. But in this case, I truly believe that the Bible is wrong. It says to love everyone as yourself, and while you may see that as trying to deliver them from sin, I see it as accepting them for who they are, because there are no problems with g.ay people.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Admin. replied...
Mar. 20, 2016 at 5:13 pm

@Lucy-Agnes


Okay, since you want me to be literate and use proper grammar, here you go~! My lack of grammar is actually a stylistic choice used to convey a lack of formality, like we’re friends. Or possibly like I don’t care about this, but you get what I’m saying, hopefully.


Either way, I am now typing more properly than before, and I think I should add that tone policing is not a great thing.


“Natural to be g.ay? Did you ever look at the human body? Did you ever think about the way men and women kinda compliment each other in a bodily way?”


...Remember how I mentioned that ga​​​y man who helped me not kill myself? His husband is tra​​​nsgender. They have a biological kid. Tra​​​ns people not only exist but can also be ga​​​y.


Another matter- interse​​​x people exist! Yup, amazing, biological se​​​x is mostly socially constructed due to bias and the fact that we live in a bina​​​rist and cisse​​​xist society.


And once again, yes, natural. Not only do we... have other holes (unsure if you want me to go too far into this subject) but being ga​​​y is obviously natural since it occurs in nature.


Sorry, this probably seems unnecessary, but we’ve had issues before so a quick derailment:


[Sometimes people call tra​​​ns people “tr​​​ansse​​​xuals” or “tra​​​nsgenders” or whatnot, but the only proper terms are “tra​​​ns people” or “tra​​​ns folks” or “tra​​​nsgender people” and that sort of thing. It’s like saying “ga​​​y people” as opposed to “ga​​​ys.” The word “tra​​​ns” or “tra​​​nsgender” are adjectives, so let’s remember that here! It’s really important to use correct terms. I’m not saying anyone’s doing this, just that it seems to happen all the time and that I used to do it before I knew it was wrong, so I feel like it’s a necessary reminder. Two of my (tr​​​ans) friend has read over this and given it the Seal of Approval, so we’re good and free of tra​​​nsphobia.]
 
Just to continue on this; there are different types of love. Se​​​xual attraction exists, but so does romantic attraction, and grouping them all together just isn’t accurate. You can ‘love’ your friend platonically, but you may not ‘love’ them romantically. There are different types of love.

For example, I’m ase​​​xual entirely (autochorrise​​​xual to be honest) and therefore I don’t feel the urge to... do anything se​​​xual. Even with my datemate, who I absolutely love (platonically and probably romantically.) They’re lovely and pretty and cute and adorable and I’m going to stop there but my point is that you can truly love someone regardless of whether you want to... do things. As a Christian, I’m sure you understand that.
 
....I sound like Allen, oh my god. Anyway, yeah, not all love is based on se​​​​​​xual attraction, so this ‘biology’ argument has nothing to do with love. I really don’t care if I fit... inside? Is that the appropriate term? Of my partners. I want to be near them and hug them and kiss them and hold their hand, but se​​​x is just not one of my priorities.
 
“I'm so sorry to hear you wanted to commit suicide and I'm really honestly grateful your dad talked you out of it. I never said g.ay people were evil....”


Sorry, that was @ Packer!! Forgot to add that in after my post was deleted. He said he felt bad for kids with ga​​​y parents.


“Admin, please, I was hoping this thread could be a charitable one...”


Ahhhh that was sarcasm. I keep forgetting that doesn’t work online >_< But yeah... hopefully we can uh. Be charitable.


“Tell you what: I'll pay attention in science class if you go take a grammar class. Deal? ;)”


Guess so, since I have already changed my entire typing style for this and gone to the regional spelling bee twice as well as writing an entire novel. Grammar shouldn’t be too hard, considering.


“It's based on unconditional, self-sacrificing love, a virtue and an action and a choice”


God, but if my da​​​temate was here... I would gladly sacrifice pretty much everything for them to be happy. Just saying. But love’s not so much of a ‘choice’- since when is love a choice?


“This charity doesn't have anything to do with feelings or romantic attraction”


...all romantic love is romantic at​​​traction by definition. I do not understand.


“Besides, you won't see two girl dogs getting together and raising puppies. Ever.”


I’ll just leave these links here. Thanks to Allen for finding out that you can just... shorten links and put them here. Useful.


goo.gl/05z0oA ; goo.gl/z8BEaE ; goo.gl/YXBiEz


Not all of these are about specifically long term pairings, but they do happen.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Admin. replied...
Mar. 20, 2016 at 5:37 pm

It's not posting my response to Quantum, but just so you know, I meant he's chill as in cool. Stunt definitely goes for the throat.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Admin. replied...
Mar. 20, 2016 at 5:43 pm

@Stuntddude


"Because they're being raised to think that it's right"

 

“You mean like how you're being raised to think it's wrong?”


[WHOOP THERE IT IS]


Also, to keep myself happy, I’m going to post happy things here each time I make a post. Today’s special: a le​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​sbian McDonald’s commercial! God, this is so cute. It’s also a fairly good anime idea?


Anyway, here it is: goo.gl/qC2OEU

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 20, 2016 at 6:02 pm

stuntddude:
Oh, dear, was I unclear about the purpose/requirements of marriage again? One of the requirements for marriage is that the couple be OPEN to life, not that they be ABLE to reproduce. I mean - a man and a woman who through no fault of their own have f.ertility problems are definitely allowed to get married. It's just if they use artificial c.ontraception that their marriage is invalid. Does that make things clear? One of the purposes of marriage IS pro.creation, but that doesn't mean inf.ertile couples can't marry. It does mean g.ay couples and couples who choose not to be open to life shouldn't/can't marry.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 20, 2016 at 6:30 pm

Admin:
Oh no. *scream of agony* The filter ate my big long reply! Okay, I'll reply later. But until then, I'd like to formally apologize for being such a prude in other comments. Can you ever forgive me? I'll try to follow my own advice and be charitable from now on. :)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 20, 2016 at 9:32 pm

Admin:
Okay. Let's try this again. :)
First of all, you're totally right about the tone policing, etc. I'm really sorry I was so stuck-up about all that and I hope we can be friends from now on. Please use improper grammar if you want to. :)
Wow, I had no idea there were so many terms out there. I must say I'm pretty confused by it all. Let me just be very clear: I believe in absolute purity when it comes to s.ex. Which means, if it's not between one man and one woman who are married, it's wrong. Does that make sense?
One thing I'm especially confused on...if you're as.exual, why do you have to have a datemate at all? I mean, can't you just be friends?
Regarding different kinds of love - YES! We finally agree on something! :) You are so right that there are different kinds of love. That's a huge part of my argument, actually. Okay. So. According to the Greeks there are four different kinds of love.
1. Physical - not necessarily l.ust, but you get the picture
2. Instinctive - so, like, parent/child, for example
3. Brotherly - friends; think Anne Shirley and Diana Blythe or Frodo and Sam
4. Agape (or as Christians call it, charity) - unconditional, self-sacrificing love
That last form of love is what I meant when I said love was a choice. It's not a feeling at all, it's - well, a desire for the other's good. For example, let's say I see you in the path of a big semi truck. Now, I don't have any of the first three kinds of love for you, because I don't know you. BUT, I could choose to push you out of the semi's way at risk to my own life. That would be true love, even though no feelings are involved, and it's a choice I make.
So...I don't know if I explained anything or if I just made where I stand more confusing...

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 20, 2016 at 9:34 pm

Oh. I hate to have to address this, but...regarding "different holes"...I fail to see how it's natural to mix the re.prod.uctive tract with the di.gestive tract....
It's painful to think about, really.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JubilexThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 21, 2016 at 8:40 am

Lucy-Agnes
 
"if you're as.exual, why do you have to have a datemate at all? I mean, can't you just be friends?"
 
I cringed. So hard. I know this is coming from a lack of knowledge, so I'm not upset or anrgy at you (just to clarify). I'm actually grateful that you want to learn. It's just such a common misconceived thought.
 
Let me ask you a question in return. Do you believe that se.x is so important that it defines a romantic relationship?
 
Not everyone has se.x as a priority, or even as a particuarly important thing in their relationship. Other things take precidence. Like building an emotional bond, spending time together, being compatible in other ways, physical closeness without se.x. To some people se.x is important in their relationships, but to others it is not. Just like to some people physical attractiveness or certain personality traits might be important or unimportant.
 
I know it's hard to understand when you're not ase.xual yourself, so I'll try to explain it.
 
Firstly, ase.xuality is not just one thing. Different people who identify as ase.xual experience different things. Some are repulsed by se.x, some have no interest in se.x, some kinda like it and are happy to do it but have no real interest in pursuing it themselves, some even like the idea of se.x but the actual reality of doing it is less appealing. And I'm sure there are other ways in which ase.xual people identify.
 
All of that resolves around se.xual attraction. That is, what makes one person feel lust for another (it's separate to se.x drive, but I don't want things to get too confusing). This is all completely different to romantic attraction, which is the drive to be romantically involved with someone.
 
Provided someone who is ase.xual isn't also aromantic, they will experience romantic feelings. These are the "lovey-dovey" type feelings you may or may not be familiar with. The major difference is that these love feelings don't transition into wanting to jump someone's bones.
 
Simplistically speaking, the only difference between the feelings of a non-ase.xual person and their significant other and the feelings of an ase.xual person and their significant other, is the drive to have se.x with them. All the other feelings can still be there.
 
Apologies if I have got anything incorrect. I don't claim to be an expert on ase.xuality.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JubilexThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 21, 2016 at 9:06 am

"I fail to see how it's natural to mix the re.prod.uctive tract with the di.gestive tract"
 
The reproductive tract and urinary tract are mixed in men.
 
And all three are pretty close together in women (agreeably not a strong argument, just interesting)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 21, 2016 at 11:41 am

Well, I get that s.ex doesn't have to be part of a relationship - I mean, I believe in saving yourself for marriage, so I would try not to even think of s.ex with my boyfriend until I was marr.ied to him - but I just don't understand why you would start a relationship with someone without having marr.iage as an ultimate goal. I guess I forgot I'm dealing with a completely different moral mindset here. :P It's depressing.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 21, 2016 at 11:43 am

How does the re.prod.uctive tract and ur.inary tract being mixed make anything better? It's still unnatural.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
MorganRF replied...
Mar. 21, 2016 at 12:08 pm

I agree with Jubi. Not all relationships are driven by se.x. Some are, some aren't, but that's not the most important thing in a marriage. The Catholic Church doesn't see it that way, no, but that's the reality of it. Do married couples want to have se.x? Most of them do, yes. Is that the most important aspect of a healthy, strong relationship? No. Does a pr.eg.na.ncy through medical practices immoral? Only to the Catholic Church. There is nothing artificial about medically aided pr.eg.ne.nc.ies, and the bond between parent and child isn't loosened. Frankly, neither is the bond between lovers

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
MorganRF replied...
Mar. 21, 2016 at 12:12 pm

Besideds that, even though most couples don't end up getting married, it's still the case that some g.ay couples do end up getting married. It's totally fine, and natural, for people to have medically aided pr.eg.na.nc.ies. Like I said in another forum thread, love is love, and love is a beautiful thing. We should be encouraging people to fall in love, not discouraging it just because of sume petty little thing as not being able to have s.ex in the way that people think when they hear that term

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 21, 2016 at 1:01 pm

If "love is love," then adultery is right.
 
The Catholic Church has reasons for saying certain medical practices are imm.oral. I'm not an expert on them at all, but in some cases (like s.urrog.ate motherho.od) the dignity of s.ex between one m.an and one wom.an is compromised.
 
I don't think the Church sees s.ex as THE most important thing in a marriage - there have been saints who retained their vir.ginity (or lived without s.ex) even though marri.ed, like St. Cecilia, St. Isidore, and, above all, Our Lady and St. Joseph.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback