This should be a short post, but in my researching of some gospel musicians who "struggle" or just accept themselves (and do not think about the very real fact of sin being sin) I came across this website called theologynow. It is apparently an anti-theist/Christian site? I'm still not sure, it seems unclear at times.
In any case, they brought up a recent documentary called "Cause The Bible Tells Me So" and asked the question: Can love between two people ever be an abomination? The answer to that is obviously yes, if you understand that there are inordinate loves or improper expressions of love. You shouldn't love your car more than a person, and you shouldn't love children with romantic interest. These are pretty much agreed upon, and this was once the situation for homosexual relationships beyond pure friendship for much of the existence of mankind. While some cultures have been rather tolerant, no one has really accepted it. People believed in a natural law, and it seemed obvious to them that man and woman needed each other and that that was the only way that life continues to come into the world. Life is good, and a relationship that cannot reproduce is not a good one. It is against life. Before the inevitable objections come up, let me say that a barren woman can still, by some miracle have a child. A homosexual union can never do this naturally.
Now, it is true that science can now produce babies out of nothing, surrogacy, or donated sperm. However, I feel rather dubious about these methods because I have trouble seeing where love comes into the picture of making the child. The ideal is for a man and a woman to become one in love and for that love to produce children to be brought up in love and reproduce for themselves later. It has always been that way for every culture. It's nice that the barren woman can get her own child, but that also makes people with the ability to give an orphaned child a great home less inclined to do so, because there is something about a child being your own flesh and blood. That simply cannot be denied. In the case of homosexual unions, it gives them a chance to have something they cannot have naturally. For the world to continue to have humans requires child bearing and the simple fact is, you need sperm and an egg. It's great that these options are available, but they lack warmth.
This warmth and love that would be absent in a laboratory or doctor's office where the setting will always be less than intimate. I think this matters, while a lot of people will not. However, it seems like common sense to realize that the circumstances behind a birth will affect a child. I have a friend who was the product of a husband raping his wife. Unfortunately for her, after her birth she was often mistreated by her mother because she reminded her, most likely, of that horrific thing her husband did. One could argue that a laboratory or doctor's office are more innocuous, but think about the fact that people are selling their fertility. They are selling themselves, prostituting a gift that was given them. No one asks for fertility in the sense that no one asks to be alive. Sure, it's your body and you can do what you will, but selling one's self (of which the ability to reproduce is always a large part) seems wrong, doesn't it? It's prostitution. The selling of something essential to your humanness for gain. It's safer sure, like making porn, but still prostitution. Just because it's safer does not make it right. The same moral issues arise.
Hmm, this was supposed to be short, but I'm apparently feeling quite prolific. ONWARD, I SAY! Anyway, that applies to the majority of the cases I can think of (because the purchase of the other half of the equation is always necessary). One of the couple can provide one aspect (one woman in a lesbian couple her womb, and one man in a gay couple his sperm) but it, obviously, cannot do it all. They can even take turns, which in itself is kind of weird. Think about it? I mean, woman have joked about it, but think about switch who carries the baby from time to time and how complicated that would have to be (particularly for heteros). That is a funny thought. Anyway, the point is that someone must be bought and I've already given some thoughts on that.
The fact is, men and women still need each other, and that has always been part of the basis for the idea that heterosexuality is good while homosexuality either less preferable or not good. Because we are able to do things more synthetically we think that we have erased that difficult, when we really just created an industry for people to sell themselves. Dubious.
Finally, I'd like to say that this does not come from an realm of hatred. If this writing is stumbled upon, please know that my belief that homosexuality is a sin because it is a disruption of nature does not mean I hate them or want to kill them. I always approach every person with love because we're all sick, to be honest. That is one of the biggest Catholic truths. Christ is the cure for sick souls. Why else compare him to our physician? There are a wealth of metaphors about God and his relationship with us because there are a wealth of ways that he relates to us. The difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual sinner is this: one's sickness is expressed differently than the other. Make no mistake, it is the same illness; but, just as it is exhibited in our daily lives, everyone is different and will be affected different. There are different cancers, you know. The truest Christian argument against homosexuality is one that keeps in mind that we are all ill, all need Christ, and all will have to give up many a thing to be cured. The diabetic gives up sugary food, the heterosexual becomes chaste, and the homosexual becomes chaste. All are called to chastity, some will just not have the eventual outlet that marriage will provide. For any professing Christians who come across this, keep in mind that you're sick too and you would not be in the Church unless you too needed a cure. Be blessed, everyone.