Arguments against gay marriage "not those of serious people"?

[signit]

This is what the judge said in his ruling:

theweek.com/article/index/264096/speedreads-federal-judge-arguments-against-gay-marriage-are-not-those-of-serious-people

The quote:

Even assuming the state has a legitimate interest in promoting procreation, the Court fails to see, and Defendant never explains, how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage has any effect whatsoever on procreation among heterosexual spouses. Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have. …] The state’s attempts to connect the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage to its interest in economic stability and in “ensuring humanity’s continued existence” are at best illogical and even bewildering.

Any response from Catholics?

Maybe someone can take the position that “promoting procreation” isn’t the argument or isn’t the only argument.

Maybe someone can explain how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage will help procreation.

I’m a Catholic myself and I’ve wondered about the “pro-marriage” or “pro-family” argument.
I’m not married; is that somehow “anti-family” or is it somehow interfering with other people’s marriages or families?

 

[PietroPaolo]

The Catholic argument isn’t so much “we have to exclude gays from marrying to increase procreation” (which is admittedly illogical). Rather it is about the definition of marriage. The question isn’t so much whether or not we ought to allow two men (or two women) to marry each other, the question rather is “can two men possible marry one another based on what marriage is?” The “pro-family” position is “no.” Marriage is ordered to procreation. Homosexual relationships are not so ordered and thus cannot be a marriage. The argument isn’t whether or not we should have “marriage equality”, but “what is marriage?”

 

[edwest2]

The Church has a response:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Oreoracle]

The Catholic argument isn’t so much “we have to exclude gays from marrying to increase procreation” (which is admittedly illogical). Rather it is about the definition of marriage.

But presumably the Church has never been interested in the secular definition of marriage anyway. Or would the Church like to make itself culpable for the original secular definition of marriage that forbade interracial marriages? I doubt it.

So if the secular definition changes, how does this threaten Catholicism’s definition in the slightest?

 

[meltzerboy]

The Catholic argument isn’t so much “we have to exclude gays from marrying to increase procreation” (which is admittedly illogical). Rather it is about the definition of marriage. The question isn’t so much whether or not we ought to allow two men (or two women) to marry each other, the question rather is “can two men possible marry one another based on what marriage is?” The “pro-family” position is “no.” Marriage is ordered to procreation. Homosexual relationships are not so ordered and thus cannot be a marriage. The argument isn’t whether or not we should have “marriage equality”, but “what is marriage?”

So the Church’s position is based on purely a DEFINITIONAL argument of what marriage is, not on what the definition entails for society?

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

But presumably the Church has never been interested in the secular definition of marriage anyway. Or would the Church like to make itself culpable for the original secular definition of marriage that forbade interracial marriages? I doubt it.

So if the secular definition changes, how does this threaten Catholicism’s definition in the slightest?

We also don’t allow people to hurt themselves. We don’t allow suicide, prostitution, drug abuse etc. Homosexual lifestyles and relationships hurt their eternal souls. (Whether they know it or not). This is why we shouldn’t condone civil unions either.

 

[Oreoracle]

We also don’t allow people to hurt themselves. We don’t allow suicide, prostitution, drug abuse etc. Homosexual lifestyles and relationships hurt their eternal souls. (Whether they know it or not). This is why we shouldn’t condone civil unions either.

So where was the Church’s outrage when the secular definition of marriage forbade interracial marriages? Or should we interpret the Church’s centuries of silence on the matter as its seal of approval?

 

[kozlosap]

We also don’t allow people to hurt themselves. We don’t allow suicide, prostitution, drug abuse etc. Homosexual lifestyles and relationships hurt their eternal souls. (Whether they know it or not). This is why we shouldn’t condone civil unions either.

Are you suggesting that you “know” who is happy and who isn’t based solely on your personal belief concerning sexual identity?
Thats the first time I’ve heard that one…

 

[edwest2]

So where was the Church’s outrage when the secular definition of marriage forbade interracial marriages? Or should we interpret the Church’s centuries of silence on the matter as its seal of approval?

Please stick to the subject.

Best,
Ed

 

[Oreoracle]

Please stick to the subject.

I am. If the OP wishes to specify that they are addressing the Catholic definition of marriage only, then I will yield. But since they referred to a court ruling, it’s safe to say they are concerned with the secular (that is, legal) definition.

The bottom line is this: If you argue that the Church should have a vested interest in the secular definition of marriage, you are implying that it committed a huge moral oversight concerning past secular definitions, such as the one forbidding interracial marriage. If the Church wants to not be held accountable for that, it best mind its own business.

 

[cheese_sdc]

I am. If the OP wishes to specify that they are addressing the Catholic definition of marriage only, then I will yield. But since they referred to a court ruling, it’s safe to say they are concerned with the secular (that is, legal) definition.

The bottom line is this: If you argue that the Church should have a vested interest in the secular definition of marriage, you are implying that it committed a huge moral oversight concerning past secular definitions, such as the one forbidding interracial marriage. If the Church wants to not be held accountable for that, it best mind its own business.

:bowdown2::bowdown2:

 

[SoulSolace]

So where was the Church’s outrage when the secular definition of marriage forbade interracial marriages? Or should we interpret the Church’s centuries of silence on the matter as its seal of approval?

When was there ever a Church decree about interracial marriages?

And how does that pertain to homosexual unions?
It is always harmful to participate in homosexual intimacy.
It isn’t harmful for heterosexuals.
There is evidence that shows even female homosexuals are more prone to certain diseases, I will not go into it due to the graphic nature, yet the studies are searchable.

Homosexual unions do corrode the family, as the best environment for any child is a mother and father. Many homosexuals adopt children into a dysfunctional, intrinsically disordered way of life. This has ripple effects into the hetero community as well.

Sorry if I seem a bit harsh…

 

[sw85]

This is what the judge said in his ruling:

theweek.com/article/index/264096/speedreads-federal-judge-arguments-against-gay-marriage-are-not-those-of-serious-people

The quote:

Any response from Catholics?

Maybe someone can take the position that “promoting procreation” isn’t the argument or isn’t the only argument.

Maybe someone can explain how the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage will help procreation.

I’m a Catholic myself and I’ve wondered about the “pro-marriage” or “pro-family” argument.
I’m not married; is that somehow “anti-family” or is it somehow interfering with other people’s marriages or families?

Marriage just is about procreation, hence marriage just is the union of people who are in principle capable of procreating.

This man’s argument is the equivalent of saying that just because triangles have three sides doesn’t mean it isn’t possible for there to exist triangles which have additional sides. That’s nonsense. A thing with more than three sides just isn’t a triangle.

 

[edwest2]

I am. If the OP wishes to specify that they are addressing the Catholic definition of marriage only, then I will yield. But since they referred to a court ruling, it’s safe to say they are concerned with the secular (that is, legal) definition.

The bottom line is this: If you argue that the Church should have a vested interest in the secular definition of marriage, you are implying that it committed a huge moral oversight concerning past secular definitions, such as the one forbidding interracial marriage. If the Church wants to not be held accountable for that, it best mind its own business.

You’ll have to provide evidence that proves your assertion.

Best,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Marriage just is about procreation, hence marriage just is the union of people who are in principle capable of procreating.

This man’s argument is the equivalent of saying that just because triangles have three sides doesn’t mean it isn’t possible for there to exist triangles which have additional sides. That’s nonsense. A thing with more than three sides just isn’t a triangle.

Well said. And this is not a “Christian only” concern.

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

Peace,
Ed

 

[signit]

I am. If the OP wishes to specify that they are addressing the Catholic definition of marriage only, then I will yield. But since they referred to a court ruling, it’s safe to say they are concerned with the secular (that is, legal) definition.

The bottom line is this: If you argue that the Church should have a vested interest in the secular definition of marriage, you are implying that it committed a huge moral oversight concerning past secular definitions, such as the one forbidding interracial marriage. If the Church wants to not be held accountable for that, it best mind its own business.

Right.

I am not doubting the Church’s definition of marriage.

But the Church has also spoken about the secular definition and has advocated for maintaining the secular definition as a man and a woman.

I was calling attention to the supposed rationale (to encourage procreation) and how, according to the judge, that is not advanced by limiting it to a man and a woman.

 

[TK421]

So where was the Church’s outrage when the secular definition of marriage forbade interracial marriages? Or should we interpret the Church’s centuries of silence on the matter as its seal of approval?

Interracial coupling has never (and will never) prevent a sacramental marriage. Not so for same-sex coupling.

But why wasn’t the Catholic Church loud enough on the injustice? Human fallibility. It’s the exact same reason why Catholics as we breath and type aren’t adequately defending marriage, and perhaps two centuries from now, when the West’s gender and marital experimentation is widely accepted as a ruinous chapter in history, the present example will be used against us, in much the same way you’re attempting to use the failings of past generations. The argument isn’t there: secular authorities do what secular authorities do, but even when racism from secular authorities was rampant in the Americas and Africa, Catholic missionaries were still doing their work amongst all the controversy. This isn’t invalidated because a bunch of baptized Catholics at the time were being disobedient and beguiling themselves with novel justifications. (Modernism and progress were likewise extremely common rallying cries for maintaining racial purity and transcontinental supremacy) It’s a mirror of today.

 

[Jim_Baur]

I believe in the beauty of virtue.

I cannot recommend drunkenness to any person.

I cannot praise the actions of a single parent–mother or father.

I cannot prejudge them, hate or discriminate against them.

In fact, I love them.

The same is true for all kinds of bad behavior, mine included.

I believe that I am luck to see the love of God in the beauty of virtue!

 

[_Abyssinia]

Excluding same-sex couples from marriage does not change the number of heterosexual couples who choose to get married, the number who choose to have children, or the number of children they have. …]

theweek.com/article/index/264096/speedreads-federal-judge-arguments-against-gay-marriage-are-not-those-of-serious-people

Does this Judge think current laws banning marriage to multiple people is excluding people from marriage? This Judge may not not be convinced of what is cited above but the following is worth noting:

International surveys show that same-sex marriage and the erosion of traditional marriage tend to go together. Traditional marriage is weakest and illegitimacy strongest wherever same-sex marriage is legal.

bit.do/fEoQ

In The Future of Marriage, sociologist David Blankenhorn reports the results of polls taken by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), a collaborative effort of universities in over 40 countries. In 2002, the ISSP polled 50,000 adults in 35 countries, asking whether they agreed or disagreed with six statements about the value of marriage:1) Married people are generally happier than unmarried people; 2) People who want children ought to get married; 3) One parent can bring up a child as well as two parents together; 4) It is all right for a couple to live together without intending to get married; 5) Divorce is usually the best solution when a couple can’t seem to work out their marriage problems; and 6) The main purpose of marriage these days is to have children. David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage 222-24 (Encounter Books 2007). The poll suggests strong correlations between societal attitudes devaluing marriage and the adoption of same-sex marriage. Positing that statements one, two, and six indicate support for traditional marriage and statements three, four, and five reflect a lack of support for traditional marriage, Blankenhorn concludes:

Support for marriage is by far the weakest in countries with same-sex marriage. The twelve countries that . . . have marriage-like civil unions show significantly more support for marriage. The two countries with regionally limited recognition of gay marriage (Australia and the UnitedStates) do better still on these support-for-marriage measurements, as do those . . . without gay marriage and without marriage-like civil unions

In some instances, the differences are quite large. For example, people in nations with gay marriage are less than half as likely as people in nations without gay unions to say that married people are happier. Perhaps most important, they are significantly less likely—38 percent compared with 60 percent—to say that people who want children ought to get married. They are also significantly more likely—83.1 percent compared with 49.7 percent—to say that cohabiting without intending to marry is all right, and are somewhat more likely to say that divorce is usually the best solution to marital problems. Compared with Australia and the United States [respondents in the countries with gay marriage] are significantly more likely to say that divorce is usually the best solution

Similarly, a study done by The World Values Survey, a Stockholm, Sweden-based group reveals the same correlation between acceptance of same-sex marriage and societal devaluation of marriage. The Survey, which polled over 100,000 people in 80 countries, id. at 231, 7 contained three statements about marriage with which respondents were asked to approve or disapprove: 1) A child needs a home with both a father and a mother to grow up happily; 2) It is all right for a woman to want a child but not a stable relationship with a man; and 3) Marriage is an outdated institution. Id. at 239. Again, the highest percentage of those who approved the second and third statements lived in countries with same-sex marriage. Id. at 231.8 By significant margins, support for marriage was highest in countries that do not recognize same-sex unions of any kind. Id. Thus, the correlation between societal devaluation of marriage and the acceptance of same-sex marriage is indisputable. As Blankenhorn concludes:

Certain trends in values and attitudes tend to cluster with each otherand with certain trends in behavior. A rise in unwed childbearing goeshand in hand with a weakening of the belief that people who want to have children should get married. High divorce rates are encountered where the belief in marital permanence is low. More one-parent homes are found where the belief that children need both a father and amother is weaker. A rise in non marital cohabitation is linked at least partly to the belief that marriage as an institution is outmoded. The legal endorsement of gay marriage occurs where the belief prevails that marriage itself should be redefined as a private personal elationship. And all of these marriage-weakening attitudes and behaviors are linked. Around the world, the surveys show, these things go together.9

bit.do/fEow

 

[edwest2]

I believe in the beauty of virtue.

I cannot recommend drunkenness to any person.

I cannot praise the actions of a single parent–mother or father.

I cannot prejudge them, hate or discriminate against them.

In fact, I love them.

The same is true for all kinds of bad behavior, mine included.

I believe that I am luck to see the love of God in the beauty of virtue!

Well said, Jim.

From Bishop Fulton Sheen:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0014.html

Peace,
Ed