X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CATHOLIC@AMERICAN.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:13:02 -0500
From:         URSIC@ASTRO.CS.HH.AB.COM
Subject:      Re: The Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11)

Thomas E Zerucha <zerucha@SHELL.PORTAL.COM> writes:

>The problem with homosexuality (and polygamy, and many other things) is that
>such a couple cannot constitute "One Flesh".  This is the same reason a valid
>marriage is indissoluable.  That form of love (sex, or eros) is reserved for
>inside of marriage, and must be open to new life.

I've always had a problem with this "one flesh" stuff. After 18 years of
marriage, I will admit, that my spouse and I often think alike, sometimes
even simultaneously,(scary thought to some of you:-) but I fail to see
how this is any different than between any two people who live together and
share a deep commitment of love towards one another. I suppose as the
number increased (Polygamy), jealousy would increase while trust decrease,
and therefore we have somehow evolved into the number two as being the
ideal. (Divine revelation even:-) As far as new life, adoption would be
the most likely option for any couple who couldn't bear their own genetic
offspring. Reproduction would not seem to be as important today as it was
in any other period in the evolution of man. But I can understand how it
came to have such an important role, even idolized by some.

>Most of the discussion by people saying that homosexual unions should be
>recognized are full of touchy-feely language about "meaningful relationship"
>and other language that avoids the issue of why marriage is sacred (and why
>deviations are evil and a form of sacrilidge against the body and soul).

Yesterday, at our adult CC class, we had a Lutheran minister speak (hard to
arrange since Christian ministers usually work Sundays:-), but I was
surprised that they only have two sacrements (Baptism and Eucharist). So
apparently, marriage isn't that sacred to all Christians. ...not to mention the
implication you make that anything which isn't sacred is evil:-)

>If anyone can explain how Adam's words, repeated by Jesus about the two
>becoming one (and it is specifically monagamous and heterosexual) can occur
>in a gay or lesbian relationshiop I would be very interested.

Adam who? You've lost me,... unless you think the only qualification for a
valid marriage is the ability to produce genetic offspring.

>Another point is that the teaching on Homosexuality goes all the way back
>to Sodom and Gommorah.  If the Catholic church's teaching (and other churches
>and religions as well) has been that consistent, you need more than a quick
>dismissial that it has been wrong.  Can you disprove every doctor, saint, and
>other teacher of the church?

I guess it depends on how threatened you feel with new scientific studies.
The same would have been said about evolution a hundred years ago, and now
it's a little disputed fact. (Unless your Cal Thomas and feel it's the
tool of the liberals:-)

>Also, if homosexuality, why not polygamy?  That has a far more scriptural
>basis since you can find examples.  Why can't a man find a meaningful
>relationship with multiple women?  If you canput any Significant Other
>in the spouse area of a form, why not have multiple blanks?  The point of
>this is that if you can find a reason why homosexual unions should be accepted,
>on what basis do you now exclude polygamy?  Or bestiality?  Or even Sadism?

I think we agree that a two person relationship is the basis, polygamy and
bestiality are not analogous, sadism, I don't know, no pain, no gain:-)

>To reply to another point, even if homosexuals are "born that way",  20/20
>just did a feature on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome children.  They have no
>concept of private property.  In effect, they steal, and do not feel that
>there is any problem on their part.  Should we except them from the
>commandment, as well as laws against larceny?

I doubt this is truely analogous also, the syndrome is obviously due to
abuse, while homosexuality is not necessarily so. I guess they'd be exempt
from the commandment (no sin) yet subject to our laws. I didn't see the
show, but I assume they understand the law and that others don't like them
taking their property.

>  We are all born with different
>temptations, but righteousness is achieved when we don't give into them, not
>when we have convinced ourselves that God will make an exception for us since
>it was his fault for making us that way in the first place.

Well, that's your opinion, but do you really think most people blame God for
their sexuality? I'd think that most, including homosexuals, would thank
God for theirs:-) -J.J.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU