A good argument against gay marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter doormouse73
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ve seen that before. He is a practicing Catholic as far as I understand, and a highly educated man.
 
Yes, I like that old clip of Alan Keys in a debate with Barack Obama. He makes the point that marriage must be in principle ordered to procreation, as it has been for thousands of years. That’s the only reason for its existence and regulation by the state.

We live in a culture, unfortunately that seems no longer able to make clear distinctions about the nature of things, and so we are left to the whims of our desires.
 
JimG said:
Yes, I like that old clip of Alan Keys in a debate with Barack Obama. He makes the point that marriage must be in principle ordered to procreation, as it has been for thousands of years. That’s the only reason for its existence and regulation by the state.

We live in a culture, unfortunately that seems no longer able to make clear distinctions about the nature of things, and so we are left to the whims of our desires.
Click to expand...
Of course, Because elderly people and infertile people can “in principle” produce offspring.

Oh wait, they cannot. Either you can or you cannot. They cannot any more so than homosexuals, thus should not be allowed to marry by your logic.
 
ZRaffles said:
Of course, Because elderly people and infertile people can “in principle” produce offspring.

Oh wait, they cannot. Either you can or you cannot. They cannot any more so than homosexuals, thus should not be allowed to marry by your logic.
Click to expand...
They can IN PRINCIPLE, because they are designed to do so (you didn’t understand the apple with a worm argument?).

Homosexuals are not designed to have offspring.
 
ZRaffles said:
Of course, Because elderly people and infertile people can “in principle” produce offspring.

Oh wait, they cannot. Either you can or you cannot. They cannot any more so than homosexuals, thus should not be allowed to marry by your logic.
Click to expand...
A married man and woman have nothing in common with two same sex persons posing as married. Unequal items ought not be treated equally.
 
They cannot fundamentally, though.

If marriage is for procreation, they are not fit to marry. That is what it comes down to.
 
ZRaffles said:
They cannot fundamentally, though.

If marriage is for procreation, they are not fit to marry. That is what it comes down to.
Click to expand...
you are not listening to the essence of the reply of Alan Keys…

listen to him,what he says… apple and worm 😉
 
ZRaffles said:
They cannot fundamentally, though.

If marriage is for procreation, they are not fit to marry. That is what it comes down to.
Click to expand...
That isn’t it. For a marriage to be ordered toward procreation, that means that we do not do anything outside of nature to prevent procreation. It is for this reason that contraception and masturbation are also considered sinful. So much focus is given to the Church’s stance on homosexuality, but it is one piece of a much larger teaching. In addition, medical procedures such as tubal ligation, hysterectomy and vasectomy are also considered sinful when they are undergone for the sole purpose of preventing procreation. They are of course acceptable if necessary for a medical reason, such as needing the uterus removed due to cancer (just as an example).

Natural infertility (whether it be from age, or from simply being infertile) are authored by God. It is the natural order of things. A marriage can still validly occur between an infertile man and woman because it is ordered toward procreation.
 
ZRaffles said:
Of course, Because elderly people and infertile people can “in principle” produce offspring.

Oh wait, they cannot. Either you can or you cannot. They cannot any more so than homosexuals, thus should not be allowed to marry by your logic.
Click to expand...
The purpose of sex isn’t to make babies it is to be open to the possibility of life. An infertile couple can keep their sexual act open to the possibility of life (aka. do nothing to preclude the possibility of life during the act) whereas a homosexual couple cannot. The institution of marriage is the sanctification of the sexual act, and when the only possible sexual act is an immoral act then labelling such a union a “marriage” is a grave and brazen insult to God.
 
ZRaffles said:
They cannot fundamentally, though.

If marriage is for procreation, they are not fit to marry. That is what it comes down to.
Click to expand...
What would be your criteria for declaring infertility?
I’ve spoken once with a woman whose tubes were tied and then she got pregnant anyway. Also old people… how old do you think a person should be in order to be declared “fundamentally” infertile according to your standards? Is there a certain age?
But I never heard of a man getting pregnant.

The truth is that God is in charge of life. Man can only accept it or attempt to place an obstacle or kill.
 
ZRaffles said:
They cannot fundamentally, though.

If marriage is for procreation, they are not fit to marry. That is what it comes down to.
Click to expand...
There are several instances in Scripture that point to why we support marriage with the need for a man and woman that, in principle, can have the ability to have children even if fertility should make it impossible.

The first instance was of Abraham and Sarah: a man and woman who were obviously past childbearing age. I suspect you don’t believe in the supernatural, but the text notes a supernatural event occurred which suspended the natural infertility of Sarah yet still required the natural genetics and marital embrace of sex. Sarah had a child.

The story of John the Baptist is also similar. Christ’s birth is a special case but it still followed the need for genetics to work–male RNA from a supernatural source combined with female RNA from Mary.

Homosexual unions cannot naturally make children for they aren’t complementary in genetics. Why is logical for the state to sanction a union that is more costly in bureaucratic requirements? Just for one “family,” you need two same-sex people to be legally recognized, at least one other adult to add genetics for a child (surrogate mother or sperm donor) OR a male and female couple that conceived and brought a child for adoption by the same-sex couple, AND at least 1 judge and 1 doctor to make much of this happen.

And through all of this, the rights of the child in this relationship are tossed out the window because the child is treated as an object legally owned by two people with no more than 1/2 genetic heritage, if any. Not a single human on this planet was born from a same-sex family through natural in utero means. None. Why must this change? To satisfy the desires of someone?

History is replete with wars and other conflict, all because someone wanted something they had no right to have nor should have tried to obtain through coercion. The same-sex ideology is not the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, which emphasized the natural place of African Americans in the genetic and social community. The gay community has achieved the important need to not be bullied or persecuted simply due to their sexual activity. But they cannot have children at any time in their lives together, and that is what marriage is about from a state-sanctioned point of view. From a Christian point of view, we add that children grow best with a mother and father in place to complete this.

The gay community is bulling others to recognize a scientific impossibility just because they want it and require others to see their “truth” or face legal action. That’s pretty childish.
 
ZRaffles said:
They cannot fundamentally, though.

If marriage is for procreation, they are not fit to marry. That is what it comes down to.
Click to expand...
They are part of the right class to marry. Same sex persons are not.
 
“In principle” means they have bodies which are ordered to procreation by reason of their sexual complementarity. Man and woman can complete the conjugal act, which is ordered to procreation. That doesn’t mean a baby is conceived every time they have conjugal relations, but the act itself is ordered to and capable of such a result. Even if they lose their fertility, the act itself remains ordered to procreation.

That is not and can never be the case for a same sex couple. They are in principle ordered against procreation, against the ability to engage in conjugal relations. For persons of the same sex, conjugal relations, and therefore marriage, is a simple impossibility.

This used to be common knowledge and common sense, for at least 6,000 years. But we live in an irrational age.
 
Thank you, thank you for this short, EXCELLENT thread! I have been increasingly troubled, discouraged, angered over this issue in the past six months and was looking around here today to find something to help clarify things. You are all masters of clarity!

It seems that people are either so self-involved that they don’t care about this mess, or they’re so detached from God, history and the meaning of the foundational structures of our culture that they think redefining marriage is somehow “fair.”

So with that in mind, now what? How are you viewing the real possibility that marriage will be redefined across the country in the near future? How do you think it’ll play out?

God’s blessings and all good.
 
JimG said:
“In principle” means they have bodies which are ordered to procreation by reason of their sexual complementarity. Man and woman can complete the conjugal act, which is ordered to procreation. That doesn’t mean a baby is conceived every time they have conjugal relations, but the act itself is ordered to and capable of such a result. Even if they lose their fertility, the act itself remains ordered to procreation.

That is not and can never be the case for a same sex couple. They are in principle ordered against procreation, against the ability to engage in conjugal relations. For persons of the same sex, conjugal relations, and therefore marriage, is a simple impossibility.

This used to be common knowledge and common sense, for at least 6,000 years. But we live in an irrational age.
Click to expand...
JimG - I think you’re quite right, we do live in an irrational age where everything is up for grabs. How do you handle it - are you angry? Discouraged? What are we to do when everything is up for grabs and we see this powerful assault on marriage, on life in the womb, the vulgarization and pervasive corruption of the culture, etc.?? Would like your thoughts.
 
filiaecclesia said:
JimG - I think you’re quite right, we do live in an irrational age where everything is up for grabs. How do you handle it - are you angry? Discouraged? What are we to do when everything is up for grabs and we see this powerful assault on marriage, on life in the womb, the vulgarization and pervasive corruption of the culture, etc.?? Would like your thoughts.
Click to expand...
It’s quite possible that marriage will be widely redefined into meaninglessness and simply fall into disuse. It almost already has.
That has ramifications for the economy as well. Most Western nations are experiencing a demographic decline, as well as economic decline. Children are an economic benefit; demographic decline is deflationary and leads to recession and depression.

I don’t mean to sound overly pessimistic, but the culture may already have declined past the tipping point. Contraception led to promiscuity, cohabitation, divorce, abortion, and crumbling family structure. It’s hard for any society to survive such shocks.

Carle Zimmerman, in his book “Family and Civilization,” sees a third cultural collapse in the future. (The first two were in ancient Greece and in ancient Rome.) Some other recent authors, not all from a Christian standpoint, have predicted a sort of new ‘monastic age’ not in the sense of an actual monastic revival, but in the sense that civilization and knowledge would be preserved in enclaves as the greater society collapses.

Sounds like a dystopian novel, but we know that the Church will survive and will rebuild civilization if necessary.

Does it need to come to that? No. But we’ve been on a downward spiral that needs somehow to be reversed if it is not to come to that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top