I got a little carried away...

at North Western Winds. Actually, it was here. I responded with a comment a wee too long. Here's an excerpt from the commentor to whom I corresponded:

"There can be no mutual holistic act of self-giving between them"

Respectfully, I have to dismiss this outright. On what possible grounds is this statement made? If we look at mutual, and holistic, and self-giving, each one of these terms can apply to the same-sex couples that I have known personally.

One might equally say that vegetarian couples can't have a self-giving relationship, or that couples who own lawnmowers can't be "mutual".

Please understand that I think it's completely fair for you to say that SSM is outside the Church's teachings, or even the will of God, or not natural. But I do object to the illogic of employing terms such as "self-giving" when it's demonstrable that gay couples are indeed capable of such relationships.

It seems to me that THIS is the root of the cries of bigotry: when one claims that SSM is immoral, that's a fair comment, but when one claims that gay couples can't be unitive, that's easily construed as bigotry when run through the filter of logic and fairness, in my opinion.

To these concerns, I replied specifically (my responses are bold):

But I do object to the illogic of employing terms such as "self-giving" when it's demonstrable that gay couples are indeed capable of such relationships.

Ah, I see. So the very argument that rationally calls into question the morality of homosexual activity and "gay marriage"--without reference to sectarian doctrine of any kind--is the argument you object to as "illogical".
Let's try it again, then, shall we?

*People are made up of body, mind and spirit.
*People live their lives as an integrated whole of body, mind and spirit.
*A man and woman that truly love each other as themselves, or even greater than themselves, choose to unite themselves together in marriage.
*This union is therefore one of body, mind and spirit.
*The fundemental expression of this union, sexual intercourse, is therefore an expression that unites them physically, mentally and spiritually. (Note that I include the emotional under the term mental for simplicity's sake)
*Physically, the sexual act provides for the couples mutual exchange of each other's essence. They share with one another their ability to participate in the procreation of new life.
*Therefore, the sexual act in marriage expresses the unitive and procreative reality that is a marriage.
*Only men and women are capable of such integrated union that ultimately unites them to each other and opens the way for new life to enter the world.
*Thus, only a man and a woman can marry.

and:

it seems to me that THIS is the root of the cries of bigotry:

I wondered when this inevitable accusation would come forth.

when one claims that SSM is immoral, that's a fair comment, but when one claims that gay couples can't be unitive, that's easily construed as bigotry when run through the filter of logic and fairness, in my opinion.

Your entitled to your opinion. To your concern that my argument is the "root of the cries of bigotry", I would say your concern is not with me. It's with the Fathers of Western Civilization.

oops!

My apologies to Curt. BTW if you haven't been there yet, Northwestern Winds is a fabulous blog. You're missing out.