(August 10, 2015 at 4:19 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:(August 10, 2015 at 3:57 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Because we believe the means of doing it was not.
Because we believe sex is sacred, period. And it is sacred because it is the means by which new human life is created, and also by which a union is consummated. It is because it is sacred that it should remain in the context of a husband and wife who love each other and are committed to each other for life.
You know this gives me an idea, if the act of producing life itself is what makes sex sacred in your eyes then what about when the act is committed between a husband and wife without the intention of reproduction? Would that not also be a violation of the sanctity of sex? If not, this would bring into question just what IS the basis for violating the sanctity of sex. If two straight people can have sex without the intention or perhaps the capability of reproduction and not have it be unholy, why would two people of the same gender who can't procreate through natural means be any less capable of getting jiggy with it and avoid committing blasphemy all the same?
I realize you don't intend to morally proselytize to anybody that disagrees with you and if gays want to cozy up to each other behind closed doors, it's no skin off your back, you're just sharing your personal beliefs on how you feel about sex and marriage. This is just some food for thought (whether you wish for it to be a potato, sandwich, or something else I leave to you).
Regardless of whether people have sex to make babies or not, sex is still the act that brings forth new life, and is thus a holy act. This doesn't mean that infertile couples shouldn't have sex or that every time a couple has sex they should be trying to have a baby. But it does mean that sex is holy and should stay in the context that is true to its nature.
Those are very good questions. btw. Catholic theologians and Popes have written entire books to explain the philosophy and theology behind the Church's teaching on sexual morality. My short, condensed little 3 sentence version above cannot even begin to do justice to your questions and to the topic at hand.
And your second paragraph is right on. Thanks for recognizing this. :-)
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
