Friday, March 29, 2013
Eduardo Peñalver comments on an argument made by Robby George ...
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2013/03/eduardo-pe%C3%B1alver-comments-on-an-argument-made-by-robby-george-.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
It’s not clear to me if Professor George’s view of the complementary nature of male and female is limited to their procreative potential, because I think it runs much deeper than that. Anyone who cannot see the complementarity in man and woman’s emotional, psychological, physical (beyond sexual), cognitive, and perspectival bonding , and in every other way people relate to each other, simply hasn’t been paying attention.
A husband and wife could never be completely “infertile” in their lovemaking.
Posted by: Mark | Mar 30, 2013 8:58:08 AM
Mark,
It seems to me that a belief in the "complementarity of the sexes" can easily become sexism. While we may be able to talk in generalities about the alleged differences between men and women (aside from the very obvious physical ones), it seems to me that the kind of complementarity the Church talks about (but never clearly defines) would have to be as "strong" as the procreative complementarity. That is, every woman would have to have characteristics that no man has, and every man would have to have characteristics that no woman has. Every woman would have to be, at least in some potential sense, a "suitable partner" for every man, and vice versa. If we accept for the sake of argument that women are more empathetic than men, it still does not follow that every woman is more empathetic than any man. So it does not follow that in all marriages, the wife must supply the empathy that the man lacks, while the husband supplies, say, the visuo-spatial skills that the wife lacks. Since the differences between men and women on these kinds of characteristics is merely statistical, it is perfectly possible for the wife in a married couple to have superior visuo-spatial skills as compared to her husband, and for the husband to be more empathetic than the wife. There Church seems to imply (without ever defining in detail) that two men or two women can't have a complementary relationship. But surely they can if we are talking about merely statistical differences between the sexes. There is no reason a man can't marry a woman who is physically stronger than he is, less empathetic, a more competent leader, a better mathematician, a better provider, and so on.
Posted by: David Nickol | Mar 30, 2013 12:29:40 PM
Mark,
It seems to me that a belief in the "complementarity of the sexes" can easily become sexism. While we may be able to talk in generalities about the alleged differences between men and women (aside from the very obvious physical ones), it seems to me that the kind of complementarity the Church talks about (but never clearly defines) would have to be as "strong" as the procreative complementarity. That is, every woman would have to have characteristics that no man has, and every man would have to have characteristics that no woman has. Every woman would have to be, at least in some potential sense, a "suitable partner" for every man, and vice versa. If we accept for the sake of argument that women are more empathetic than men, it still does not follow that every woman is more empathetic than any man. So it does not follow that in all marriages, the wife must supply the empathy that the man lacks, while the husband supplies, say, the visuo-spatial skills that the wife lacks. Since the differences between men and women on these kinds of characteristics is merely statistical, it is perfectly possible for the wife in a married couple to have superior visuo-spatial skills as compared to her husband, and for the husband to be more empathetic than the wife. There Church seems to imply (without ever defining in detail) that two men or two women can't have a complementary relationship. But surely they can if we are talking about merely statistical differences between the sexes. There is no reason a man can't marry a woman who is physically stronger than he is, less empathetic, a more competent leader, a better mathematician, a better provider, and so on.
Posted by: David Nickol | Mar 30, 2013 2:40:13 PM
A man and woman at least have the potentiality of reproduction event if they are not (at a particular moment) actually fertile. With two men or two women even the potentiality is completely absent.
Posted by: CLS | Mar 30, 2013 5:38:57 PM
See Catholic Catechism for teaching on The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony unless your desire is to undermine The Deposit of Faith and thus The Catholic Church on a Catholic Website.
Posted by: Mike D. | Mar 30, 2013 8:59:21 PM
David—
Yes, it can devolve into sexism, I suppose, but not if understood to be something much more fundamental than which spouse has, say, superior visuo-spatial skills. Even when a man who is a 98-pound, weakling marries a Bulgarian weightlifter, he comes to the marriage as a man: he thinks as a man, he doesn’t think as a man, he learns as a man, he teaches as a man, he holds as a man, he relinquishes as a man, he takes as a man and he gives the gift of self, whether his bride be his wife or the bride of Christ, as a man.
Unless he should choose not to.
Posted by: Mark | Mar 31, 2013 11:05:17 AM
David Nickol wrote:
"Since the differences between men and women on these kinds of characteristics is merely statistical,..."
Yet we traditionalists deny this. Genders (the social & cultural differences between men and women) are not merely “constructed” but have a basis in sexes (the genetic, anatomical & physiological differences between males and females). If our bodies are an essential part of us, we are inseparable from our sex. It permeates our social interactions, including that of bonding and parenting. Gender is, in part, the vehicle through which sex enters our experience, a bridge between the biological description of the world and the phenomenological account of the same. While the link between gender and sex is undoubtedly complex, it is not something that can be simply changed to suit our tastes, as if husbands and wives and fathers and mothers were just swappable menu items.
The masculine-female distinction is not just reducible to the male-female one, of course: gender is certainly socially shaped, even if it is not a mere social construct. The division between the sexes is not a bright line either (some males exhibit secondary sex characteristics of the typically female kind and vice-versa, while some individuals have a blend of primary sex characteristics). Still, our sex is projected into our lives in ways that can be described as patterns - among other things, the hormonal systems, body types and brain structures of men and women all factor into our psychology and sociology. We are not slaves to our genes, but we are not fully free of their effects, either.
True, this understanding of gender will inform moral theologizing only if the contours of gender can be expressed in generalities. This is not an unreasonable assumption to make if the alternative is to say that the masculine and feminine are just products of enculturation (from the viewpoint of sociobiology too, this option has little purchase; gender is not so much a construction as the unfolding of long-term genetic strategies, dictated by our biological makeup). To say that gender norms are generalizations is not to discount the rooting of gender in sex.
The Church does not adopt an either/or approach, I add. *Both* sexual and gender complementarity figure into its account of marriage. Two men or two women can have a complementary relationship, but not all relationships can become marriages on the traditional account.
Posted by: Clement Ng | Mar 31, 2013 12:44:36 PM
Only in a complementary relationship of Sexual Love, between a man and woman, united as husband and wife, can two hearts beat as one, for Love is not possessive, nor is it coercive, nor does it serve to manipulate for the sake of self-gratification.
Posted by: N.D. | Mar 31, 2013 3:02:30 PM
Mark and Clement,
It seems to me that all you have said is that men are men and women are women. I have raised the question of the complementarity of the sexes in other forums, and people who who have insisted on it as a reality (and a justification for denying same-sex marriage) have failed to go farther with the concept than making statements like, "Women tend to be more nurturing." As I said, to invoke anything beyond the "reproductive complementarity" of male and female bodies, it seems to me necessary to identify characteristics, traits, capacities, and so on that every woman has and no man, and a set of traits complementary to those that every man has and no woman has. I have never seen anything resembling a successful attempt to do this. On the other hand, if you take a look at the entry WOMAN in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912, you see just how deep a hole you can dig yourself into by trying. Here are some excerpts (and obviously I am picking the most egregious):
*****************
• The female sex is in some respects inferior to the male sex, both as regards body and soul. On the other hand, woman has qualities which man lacks.
• The second branch of the woman question, which of necessity follows directly after that of gaining a livelihood, is that of a suitable education. The Catholic Church places here no barriers that have not already been established by nature. FÈnelon expresses this necessary limitation thus: "The learning of women like that of men must be limited to the study of those things which belong to their calling; The difference in their activities must also give a different direction to their studies." The entrance of women as students in the universities, which has of late years spread in all countries, is to be judged according to these principles. Far from obstructing such a course in itself, Catholics encourage it. This has led in Germany to the founding of the "Hildegardisverein" for the aid of Catholic women students of higher branches of learning. Moreover, nature also shows here her undeniable regulating power. There is no need to fear the overcrowding of the academic professions by women.
• In the medical calling, which next to teaching is the first to be considered in discussing the professions of women, there are at the present time in Germany about 100 women to 30,000 men. For the studious woman as for others who earn a livelihood the academic calling is only a temporary position. The sexes can never be on an equality as regards studies pursued at a university.
• The opposition expressed by many women to the introduction of woman's suffrage, as for instance, the New York State Association opposed to Woman "Suffrage", should be regarded by Catholics as, at least, the voice of common sense. Where the right of women to vote is insisted upon by the majority, the Catholic women will know how to make use of it.
********************
To repeat my point in different words, if one insists on the concept of the complementarity of the sexes, it should (I think) be possible to choose heterosexual married couples at random and for each one say, "The wife here has the a, b, and c, and the husband has the complementary qualities A, B, and C."
You say, "To say that gender norms are generalizations is not to discount the rooting of gender in sex."
What about individuals who are born with ambiguous genitalia at birth and their gender must be determined surgically? Just because the baby is XX (or XY) does not mean the parents and the medical team will surgically make it a girl (or boy). Also, what about children who from the earliest age are convinced that their real gender is the opposite of their physical gender? What about women who are genetically male (XY) but whose bodies appear female because of androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS)? Individuals with the most complete form of AIS do not have a clue that they are not girls or women unless medical science tells them so. And I shouldn't have phrased it that way, because I think almost everyone (including the Church) would agree that they *are* (or should be allowed to consider themselves) girls or women.
So it seems to me that not only is it different to define in any detail "maleness" and "femaleness" as complementary. In some cases it is difficult to decide if a person is a male or a female.
Now I suppose that for anyone who insists that the "reproductive complementarity" of men and women is a sufficient reason to prohibit same-sex marriage, the rest is academic. But it is not academic gay people in relationships and those sympathetic to them to have it implied that same-sex relationships are in some way inauthentic or inferior because sexual complementarity is absent.
Posted by: David Nickol | Apr 1, 2013 9:17:14 AM
David, no one is saying that same sex relationships are inferior or inauthentic, for there are many examples of Loving friendships and relationships between two men or two women, including fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, brothers, sisters..., however, this does mot change the fact that same sex sexual acts demean the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person and thus can never be acts of Love.
Posted by: Nancy | Apr 1, 2013 1:45:52 PM
Nancy,
Can two men or two women who are sexually attracted to each other and who would, except for their belief in Catholic sexual morality, engage in same-sex sexual activity, be truly and selflessly in love with one another? May they build a life together chastely the same as, say, a wife and a husband one of whom has been infected with HIV through a blood transfusion and must refrain from sex?
Posted by: David Nickol | Apr 1, 2013 4:29:00 PM
David, The God of our Salvation is The God Who desires we overcome our disordered inclinations, including our disordered sexual inclinations, so that we are not led into temptation, but rather, sin no more. As Catholics, our only orientation should be to Love one another according to The Word of God, The Truth of Love.
Posted by: Nancy | Apr 1, 2013 5:10:16 PM
I would like to see some record of other work all those taking offense on the behalf of adoptive parents, children, and infertile couples have done for them outside of the context of the same sex marriage debate.
It would help eliminate the suspicion I have that they are using these people as pawns for rhetorical advantage rather than genuine concern.
Posted by: JohnMcG | Apr 1, 2013 5:24:40 PM
David Nickol wrote:
"It seems to me that all you have said is that men are men and women are women."
I may not be that persuasive and clear, but surely I am not advancing a mere tautology. What you want to maintain, I suggest, is that I regard all men as males and all women as females.
My point was that gender is to be distinguished from sex, that it is not a mere social construction, and that it nonetheless has a basis in sex. Our bodies are an essential part of us and our sex enters our social experience *through* gender. In affirming this, I am not compelled, as a matter of consistency, to accept stronger conclusions - that gender is not at all shaped through socialization, that gender patterns are entirely uniform, that the division between sexes is a bright line. As I said, the link between gender and sex is complex.
"As I said, to invoke anything beyond the "reproductive complementarity" of male and female bodies, it seems to me necessary to identify characteristics, traits, capacities, and so on that every woman has and no man, and a set of traits complementary to those that every man has and no woman has."
This result is surely too strong. Why would a notion of gender complementarity fail to have purchase if not every man or woman expresses the characteristics typically associated with his or her gender? I have already pointed out that gender patterns are generalizations, albeit not like random distributions (even random distributions can exhibit patterns – it is not impossible that the pile of pebbles I toss into the air could fall into a triangular shape, for example). Yet gender has a basis in sex all the same. It is not just a product of enculturation, even if social factors play a critical role.
As for what the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1912 says, I see no need to admit it as a consequence of my view. Many feminists maintain that women tend to be more empathetic than men and obviously this does not commit them to the view that women are naturally the “weaker” sex.
What does this have to do with the marriage debate? Consider the traditionalists’ claim that children should be raised, ideally, by their married biological parents. This view has two components – 1) a child should be raised, ideally, by a married father and mother, and 2) the parents should, ideally, be the biological fathers and mothers. The justification for 1 is that fathers and mothers should not be thought of as interchangeable, because gender is not just a social construction, and parents should be married, because matrimony binds them in ways that orient them towards childrearing. The justification for 2 is that biological ties are valuable and should not be severed save for exceptional circumstances (e.g. when a pregnant teenager, unable to afford the expenses, has no alternative to giving her baby up for adoption).
If the traditionalist account is true, then even the marriages of childless heterosexual couples symbolize the sexual complementarity that lies at the heart of humane parenting. Equally, the legal recognition of SSM would become a challenge to this ideal, by reinforcing the *opposite* notion that children simply need caregivers, regardless of the latter’s sex (the increasing social acceptance of single parenting by choice reinforces this notion too). In upholding our ideal, we traditionalists are not forced to maintain that *all* females excel at, say, nurturing and *all* males excel at, say, disciplining. All we have to assert is that the contributions of fathers and mothers are generally unique and irreplaceable.
Your response, I suspect, is to point out that gay and lesbian couples could also be gender complementary and that they might raise children in ways that enhance well-being over and above that of some married, heterosexual, biological environments (like high conflict ones). This rebuttal does not take into account the generalizing nature of law and the effects of legal changes on the wider culture through symbols.
First, the law has to work on generalizations. We set the drinking age at, say, 21, even though we know that some youths younger than 21 are mature enough to drink responsibly. No one considers this restriction on the liberty of the mature youths an injustice. Likewise, the usefulness of generalizations about gender patterns is not undermined because some males and some females do not exhibit paternal and maternal qualities.
Second, the influence that symbols have on the cultural mindset is far-reaching. Even if only a small minority of same-sex couples (in jurisdiction X) want to be civilly married, advocates of legal recognition would still believe in the justice of their cause, because they grasp the symbolism of equalized civil marriage. Similarly, the increasing social acceptance and legal recognition of common-law relationships has obviously affected the way many young people view marriage. Yet how can cultural normalization of one relationship (cohabitation) have an effect on how people perceive another relationship (marriage)? If you know the answer to this, then you can also see how the extension of the right to marry to same-sex couples will impact the way many others view marriage in general. True, traditional heterosexual couples will still be free to dedicate their lives to each other and bring up children. This act becomes more difficult, however, in a culture where same-sex parenting is considered just as ideal as opposite-sex parenting. This will become the new social norm, regardless of how many same-sex couples (who want to civilly marry) intend to conceive and raise children.
Moreover, even if childrearing outcomes are not dependent on parental sex, the legal recognition of SSM will accelerate the discounting of biological ties. Children conceived through gamete donation and surrogate motherhood will not have the opportunity to know their family history and fit themselves inside the narrative that began with the story of one’s ancestors. Of course, heterosexual couples who turn to these methods also deprive their children of this opportunity. A restriction or prohibition of gamete donation and surrogate motherhood would be limitation of liberty, though. The reservation of the right to marry to opposite-sex couples is not a constraint on liberty – the traditional definition of marriage may be discriminatory, but it does not prohibit companionship of any sort. Whether or not SSM is the law of the land, same-sex couples will still be able to live together and build a life accordingly.
(I also add that the devaluation of biological ties implies that children can be raised by *anyone* competent: if biological ties are no more valuable than other associations, then a mother should not be outraged upon discovering that the newborn she has been nursing is not her progeny, owing to a mix up in the maternity ward. For why should it matter that this child is not her biological offspring, so long as she has *a* child?).
"What about individuals who are born with ambiguous genitalia at birth and their gender must be determined surgically?... Also, what about children who from the earliest age are convinced that their real gender is the opposite of their physical gender? What about women who are genetically male (XY) but whose bodies appear female because of androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS)?..."
These questions show a confusion between gender and sex. Gender is expressed in psychological, social and cultural features, while sex is expressed in genetic, anatomical & physiological features. The former has the “man-woman” categories and the latter has the “male-female” ones. You are asking questions about sex determination, not gender classification. Earlier, I noted that sex divisions are not bright lines – some individuals have a blend of primary or secondary sexual characteristics, as you point out (ambiguous genitalia, XXY conditions and other intersex phenomenon). This does not by itself show that the concept of sex is useless. Rather, it points to a difficulty in grouping objects into natural kinds (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds). It is a problem for many accounts of human sexuality, not just the traditionalist one.
Finally, I am surprised by your assertion that the Church only talks about gender complementarity, without ever going into detail. What are we to make of JPII's *Theology of the Body* then?
Posted by: Clement Ng | Apr 1, 2013 10:39:44 PM
David, how do same-sex sexual acts, which do not respect the inherent Dignity of the human person, serve the Good of those persons engaging in same-sex sexual acts?
Posted by: Nancy | Apr 2, 2013 12:59:18 AM
I should qualify something I wrote in the last post: "Whether or not SSM is the law of the land, same-sex couples will still be able to live together and build a life accordingly." That is not quite true, since same-sex couples in a legal regime where same-sex marriage is not recognized are not eligible for the health, life insurance, pension, inheritance, etc. benefits and discounts that married opposite-sex couples are entitled too. So gay and lesbian couples cannot have any life they want, assuming they value such benefits and discounts. Still, this does not undermine my main point, that the traditional definition of marriage at law is not a limitation of any couple's liberty (but may instead be a constraint on their equality vis-à-vis other couples).
Posted by: Clement Ng | Apr 2, 2013 2:20:10 AM
Since it is true that Marriage by its inherent essence is restrictive to begin with because not every couple can exist in relationship as husband and wife, then the only question before the court should be, are the benefits provided to married couples unconstitutional because they do not exist for all couples or groups of people, or single persons, or is it unjust discrimination to provide benefits to married persons and not all persons? It is not necessary, nor is it proper for The State to change the definition of Marriage in order to determine whether all persons should receive the same benefits as married persons.
Posted by: Nancy | Apr 2, 2013 12:48:10 PM
To be clear, by proper, The State should not be condoning or affirming any type of sexual act other than the marital act, which is Life-affirming and Life-sustaining, and is thus necessary and proper for human life to flourish.
Posted by: Nancy | Apr 2, 2013 1:52:08 PM
Clement,
I will try to be very brief. What I am objecting to is the apparent belief by some that sexual complementarity in both the biological, reproductive sense *and* the psychological, characterological sense means that same-sex relationships must essentially be frauds or failures, and that no two men or no two women can genuinely love each other "romantically," in the way a man and woman can love each other. When I look at gay couples that I know who have been together for twenty, thirty, forty and more years, I see people who genuinely and selflessly care about each other and who are just as complementary as many heterosexual couples, *without* one partner "taking the woman's role" and the other partner "taking the man's role." And of course not every two spouses of heterosexual couples are guaranteed to be complementary in the characterological sense, and some that are will be complementary by the man having "feminine" traits and the woman having "masculine" traits. The issue of same-sex couples as parents is a separate issue as far as I am concerned, but with over 40% of children being born out of wedlock, and only 50% of children being raised continuously from birth to age 18 in a household with both biological parents, I have to wonder how sincere or consistent those are who oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds that children have a "right" to be raised by both their biological parents. Gay people are perhaps 4% of the population, and it seems unlikely that marriage (let alone the raising of children) will ever be the norm for gay people.
Just a note that I am having great difficulty posting to Mirror of Justice, and I had to take extraordinary steps to get this message to appear. The person handling the technical issues has been very nice and very helpful, but it is becoming burdensome to carry on in this manner. So I am not sure I will be able to post here in the future.
Thanks for the discussion!
Posted by: David Nickol | Apr 2, 2013 7:40:17 PM
Clement,
I will try to be very brief. What I am objecting to is the apparent belief by some that sexual complementarity in both the biological, reproductive sense *and* the psychological, characterological sense means that same-sex relationships must essentially be frauds or failures, and that no two men or no two women can genuinely love each other "romantically," in the way a man and woman can love each other. When I look at gay couples that I know who have been together for twenty, thirty, forty and more years, I see people who genuinely and selflessly care about each other and who are just as complementary as many heterosexual couples, *without* one partner "taking the woman's role" and the other partner "taking the man's role." And of course not every two spouses of heterosexual couples are guaranteed to be complementary in the characterological sense, and some that are will be complementary by the man having "feminine" traits and the woman having "masculine" traits. The issue of same-sex couples as parents is a separate issue as far as I am concerned, but with over 40% of children being born out of wedlock, and only 50% of children being raised continuously from birth to age 18 in a household with both biological parents, I have to wonder how sincere or consistent those are who oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds that children have a "right" to be raised by both their biological parents. Gay people are perhaps 4% of the population, and it seems unlikely that marriage (let alone the raising of children) will ever be the norm for gay people.
Just a note that I am having great difficulty posting to Mirror of Justice, and I had to take extraordinary steps to get this message to appear. The person handling the technical issues has been very nice and very helpful, but it is becoming burdensome to carry on in this manner. So I am not sure I will be able to post here in the future.
Thanks for the discussion!
Posted by: David Nickol | Apr 2, 2013 7:42:38 PM
Hi David. I will try to be brief too (as you can surmise, that is hard for me!)
First, I do not deny that same-sex couples can genuinely love each other, with the same intensity as opposite-sex couples. George, Anderson, Girgis and company do not deny this either. Still, there is not general right to legally marry the one you love, if this means a right to have any consensual amorous relationship recognized as a civil marriage.
Second, I agree that many gays and lesbians would make (and already are) excellent parents and could furnish a home that is more conducive to good child wellbeing than many heterosexual parents could. I do not doubt too that same-sex couples with children genuinely love their sons and daughters, however they were conceived. Nonetheless, if children should, ideally, be raised by their married biological parents, then non-nuclear families fall short of this norm, even if many of them are superb environments. You are aware, I expect, that studies of child wellbeing typically control for differences in parental sex, age, kinship (biological vs. non-biological), income and other factors, so as to isolate the effects of each. Children raised by single or cohabiting parents or raised by different sets of parents face higher risk of poorer outcomes, even when the household income is comparable to that of nuclear families. So the sex and kinship of parents does have a critical influence. It is not accident that parents view their progeny as continuations of themselves, that they feel a strong sense of communion with something that shares their DNA.
It matters not that many, perhaps most, same-sex couples do not intend to legally marry and raise children in post-SSM America. As I suggested, it is the symbolism of equalized civil marriage that will be powerful, re-shaping the cultural imagination. Have a look at the family structure changes in my neck of the woods, Canada, where SSM has been legally recognized in every province since 2005 http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/120919/dq120919a-eng.htm. Has the extension of the right to marry to same-sex couples "caused" the higher growth of common-law coupling & parenting and never married, single-parenting? No - these trends emerged in the 1970s, long before the arrival of the SSM debate. Few doubt though, that SSM has transformed the public consciousness, lending support to the other trends as well. This is what we should expect in a culture where, increasingly, the unity of the traditional family is considered artificial and superflous.
Posted by: Clement Ng | Apr 3, 2013 12:12:47 PM
David, in essence, one cannot condone and affirm a same-sex relationship without condoning and affirming same-sex sexual acts.
Posted by: Nancy | Apr 3, 2013 3:04:59 PM
David, in essence, one cannot condone and affirm a same-sex sexual relationship without condoning and affirming same-sex sexual acts.
Posted by: Nancy | Apr 3, 2013 3:14:00 PM
If we, as men and women, were designed in such a way that engaging in same-sex sexual acts would not be demeaning, would we be discussing the need to respect our inherent Dignity, to begin with?
Posted by: Nancy | Apr 4, 2013 10:01:32 AM
Nancy,
Since nature creates homosexuals as homosexuals, their same-sex sexual acts cannot demean them; it affirms their natural state. The reason we must discuss the need to respect our inherent dignity is that often the dignity of others is disrespected merely because they are different from the norm.
sean s.
Posted by: sean samis | Apr 5, 2013 3:59:07 PM
Sean, God creates, nature is part of God's creation. It is not unjust discrimination for men and women to discriminate between appropriate behavior that respects the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person, and inappropriate behavior that demeans the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person, and can thus never be an act of Love.
Posted by: Nancy | Apr 6, 2013 11:55:50 AM
We are and have always been sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.,,
Posted by: Nancy | Apr 7, 2013 1:01:51 PM
God Is Love. Love exists in relationship. God Is a Perfect Communion of Love. Love is not possessive, nor is it coercive, nor does it serve to manipulate for the sake of self-gratification. Love desires that which is Good for the other. We exist because Perfect Love, God, exists. We cannot transform the essence of Love, because we cannot transform the essence of God. Do not let your hearts be hardened like a pillar of salt, choose Love. It is Love that gives us Life.
Posted by: Nancy | Apr 8, 2013 8:45:27 AM
Nancy, whether we say nature makes homosexuals as they are or that God makes them so through nature makes no difference to this topic. Having been made so, their same-sex sexual acts cannot demean them; it affirms the state God or nature gave them. So long as their conduct is voluntary and non-violent, it is appropriate and respects their inherent personal and relational dignities as human persons.
sean s.
Posted by: sean samis | Apr 8, 2013 10:17:17 AM
I am with those faiths who think "God is love" includes honoring the love in same sex relationships, including the sacramental marriage ceremonies performed by those religions. The 'natural' argument appears not to be the ultimate concern; the concern seems to be that such and such is not "appropriate," which turns out to be something a bit different.
Posted by: Joe | Apr 8, 2013 12:02:05 PM
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
