Something hit me this morning as I got out of bed. Namely, when did the homosexual lobby successfully co-opt the word "gay"? The word use to mean "happy", which from many accounts I have read, the homosexual lifestyle is anything but.
That being said, every marriage should be gay. That is, every marriage should adhere to the pro-life principles that make for a happy marriage. Unfortunately, the homosexual lifestyle contradicts many of these principles.
For example, the foundation of a gay marriage lays in the complementarity between a man and a woman. So for a marriage to be truly happy, it must be heterosexual in nature. This in itself will not ensure happiness in marriage, but it is constituative of all happy marriages. So gay marriage is by its nature heterosexual.
So is gay sex. This sounds a little strange, but as we read in Familiaris Consortio, there are two functions of conjugal relations that cannot be separated from one another. The first is unitive, in which the spouses enjoy each other's natural complementarity. Which is why homosexual relations can never be gay -- it lacks the unitive function because it fundamentally lacks this complementarity.
The second function of conjugal relations is the procreative function. It is also lacking within homosexual relationships. Thus a homosexual marriage can never be gay since such a relationship is intrinsically sterile.
So, Pete Vere supports gay marriage, eh? I like it. :-)
Pete,
Weren't you the one, when you responding to Catholics for Dean, who declined to say why you'd be a Democrat if all issues were equal on the grounds that you'd be misquoted in support of the nine (now five) dwarves if you did? Well, if anyone was ever going to misquote you, it'll be on this.
For more than thirty years, radical homosexuals have appropriated words and symbols to promote their cause. The word 'gay' is just one example.
Another is the 'rainbow.' The Lord God Himself made the rainbow a sign of His covenant with the human race But who thinks of that anymore when they see a rainbow flag or bumpersticker? Now the rainbow is the sign of the homosexual 'lifestyle'.
Like all sin, homosexual activity is a counterfeit of the genuine article. It doesn't have anything original (Satan can't create, only imitate). It mimics the truth and pulls people into accepting the counterfeit instead of the genuine love and fulfilment that God wants for all of us.
Pray for all those who have accepted this counterfeit culture.
LOL! Jeff, while I know you stand with the Church in opposing so-called homosexual marriage, have you not often boasted about the gaity of your relationship with your wife? ;)
The two reasons you supply for marriage are lacking evidence to keep marriage between a man and a woman only. Although I am a heterosexual male, I know that several of my relationships with my friends an amount of complementarity. As for procreation, many people who are married lack the ability to procreate. Some simply do not want children. Are all marriages that do not result in children failures?
Quick Note To Anyone Interested
Gay began to mean homosexual in the 1920's or 1930's.
Hey I added something to this discussion over at my blog. Is there a way to submit that to the trackback section? Sorry I'm new at this.
Hi, Marc.
I've only seen trackbacks working when both blogs are running Movable Type. However, you can use an "A HREF" tag in your comment to specify a link to your blog.
By the way, the link to Catholic Light in your posting doesn't seem to be working. Can you check it? Thx.
Oh. Ok. Fixed the link, by the way.
Chris,
Your questions about the initial posting's understanding of the "unitive" and "procreative" dimensions of marriage (actually described by Paul VI in Humanae Vitae) reflect some of the same issues that never seem to be answered head on when raised. In fact, when this issue was discussed during my seminary Moral Theology and Canon Law classes, the "answers" (due no fault to the professors, who had to state the "official" position) were never satisfactory.
First, Pete's description of the "unitive" dimension of marriage in purely physical terms is incorrect on its face. Paul VI himself described this as a "union of life and love" (i.e. not in terms of "a penis fits inside a vagina" type of 'complementary'.. that was elsewhere in the text!). Thus, when understood even as Paul VI described it, the union of two gay men or two lesbians certainly is capable of meeting the basic threshold of being a union of "life and love."
Second, your point about procreation is right on target, but again, will anyone care to step up to the plate and address it? If "procreation" (even if understood only in terms of "potential" or "openness to procreation") is intrinsic to marriage, then how (without venturing into the realm of the miraculous) is it possible we can celebrate the marriage of two 70 yr olds, or a couple who have no physical possibility of reproducing (e.g. a wife who has had uterine cancer and a total hysterectomy, or a man who has had surgery due to testicular cancer and is incapable of producing sperm)?