Bishop Barron's statement on same sex marriages

[1neophyte]

I disagree. The secular arguments against SSM are actually the strongest. Marriage is the institution necessary for raising children. The natural result of the sexual relationship of men and women is children. These children deserve to have a mother and father, ideally their own, raise them. Marriage is an institution which helps achieve this.

Homosexual relationships are intrinsically sterile. They will never produce children. There is no need to formally recognize these relationships, even if they were good. Recognizing homosexual relationships is like having a love interest registry. Do people really think the government should be in the business of keeping track of ones love interests or sexual partners? Of course not.

The dangerously confused and given over to evil Justice Kennedy in his opinion made it clear he thought SSM needed to be recognized to legitimize and promote homosexuality. His argument was a moral one predicated on the goodness of homosexual sex. Needless to say that is a terrible argument as homosexuality has nothing to do with children since by its nature it is anti children.

I completely agree with you from a Catholic perspective, but this is not a secular argument. Maybe it once was, but not now. If the institution of marriage (same sex or otherwise) were abolished tomorrow, we still would have no shortage of new children being born. It’s a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless.

 

[exnihilo]

I completely agree with you from a Catholic perspective, but this is not a secular argument. Maybe it once was, but not now. If the institution of marriage (same sex or otherwise) were abolished tomorrow, we still would have no shortage of new children being born. It’s a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless.

I never mentioned God or the Catholic Church so I respectfully disagree. It is absolutely a secular argument. Even atheists can and have supported the family. The Soviet Union, being by nature a destructive force, at first tried to destroy the family. But after the not surprising results of this became clear they reversed and sought to strengthen the family. They were also very opposed to homosexuality.

 

[mVitus]

Using the USSR as a role model is not good. As for the arguments, I’ll list yours and then the secular counter-argument.

1: Marriage is necessary for raising children: Single parents and non-married couples have raised children to be model citizens so it is not necessaey. In addition there are married couples without children so children aren’t essential.

2: Children ideally are raised by their mother and father: Adopted children have been raised as model citizens by adoptive parents. We also live in a non-ideal world so an adoptive same sex couple is preferable than the system.for raising children and same sex parents have raised model citizens.

3: SS relations are sterile and need no recognition: We have sterile marrird couples that are recognized. Why not SS couples? Plus marriage comes with additional benefits that are sought by two people in love with each other such as end-of-life decisions and medical coverage on the same plan.

I used to be pro-gay marriage and I used to laugh at the silly arguments made against it. Frankly I still find secular arguments against it to be stretching it. Religious reasoning has brought me against it personally, but I find no justification for its institutional abolishment, just laws in the grey area that it conflicts with religious beliefs. You need God if you want to argue against it as an institution.

 

[Elf01]

exnihilo;14482588":

Homosexual relationships are intrinsically sterile. They will never produce children. There is no need to formally recognize these relationships, even if they were good. Recognizing homosexual relationships is like having a love interest registry. Do people really think the government should be in the business of keeping track of ones love interests or sexual partners? Of course not.

The same argument could be made for infertile couples. I will admit that a hetrosexual infertile couple would be closer to the ideal state than a homosexual couple, but it could also be pointed out that many situations are not ideal.

mVitus stated it better.

 

[Ormond]

May I ask a relatively straightforward question? Has anyone here, or anyone that you might know, been negatively affected in some way by same sex marriage being allowed?

The flaw in your question Bradski is that it assumes opposition to gay marriage has anything to do with logic. Thus, I offer an alternate strategy for this cultural conversation based on the more realistic ground of emotion…

PROPOSAL: Let’s start a movement to outlaw marriage between conservative Catholics and any other Christians who publicly oppose gay marriage. Let’s declare that sex between such couples is a mortal sin punishable by an eternity in hell. Let’s refuse them service in public accommodations so that we don’t become contaminated by their disgusting sin.

The only way our traditionalist friends are ever going to get this is when it finally dawns on them that the righteous sword of holy fantasy moral superiority that they are crafting can be just as easily turned against them too. Seriously, it can, as proven by a long history of discrimination and worse against Catholics.

Hang on, before anybody gets all mad, please remember than I am not proposing anything be done towards traditional Catholics except what they are proposing be done to gay couples. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, that’s all I’m saying.

 

[1neophyte]

I never mentioned God or the Catholic Church so I respectfully disagree. It is absolutely a secular argument. Even atheists can and have supported the family. The Soviet Union, being by nature a destructive force, at first tried to destroy the family. But after the not surprising results of this became clear they reversed and sought to strengthen the family. They were also very opposed to homosexuality.

How did they try to destroy the family?

 

[1neophyte]

The flaw in your question Bradski is that it assumes opposition to gay marriage has anything to do with logic. Thus, I offer an alternate strategy for this cultural conversation based on the more realistic ground of emotion…

PROPOSAL: Let’s start a movement to outlaw marriage between conservative Catholics and any other Christians who publicly oppose gay marriage. Let’s declare that sex between such couples is a mortal sin punishable by an eternity in hell. Let’s refuse them service in public accommodations so that we don’t become contaminated by their disgusting sin.

The only way our traditionalist friends are ever going to get this is when it finally dawns on them that the righteous sword of holy fantasy moral superiority that they are crafting can be just as easily turned against them too. Seriously, it can, as proven by a long history of discrimination and worse against Catholics.

Hang on, before anybody gets all mad, please remember than I am not proposing anything be done towards traditional Catholics except what they are proposing be done to gay couples. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, that’s all I’m saying.

What color is the sky in your world?

 

[Ormond]

What color is the sky in your world?

Fair colored.

Yes, I know many or most members will consider my proposal above to be a flight of fantasy. But that’s only because they haven’t fully studied their Catholic history, and so they’ve forgotten how often Catholics have been the target of the same kind of ugly nonsense often being trumpeted in these threads.

I suggest a constructive solution. Most of us with Catholic DNA, me included, have an incurable need to point the finger, to judge, and sometimes condemn. Let’s accept this as a fact of life.

The question should be, at whom do we aim this powerful weapon? How do we make the very best use of this tool, and limit it’s destructive aspects?

We do so by aiming the finger of blame and shame at far more worthy enemies than gay people trying to love each other and start families.

My favorite enemy is the tobacco companies. I propose that they richly deserve all the blame and shame we can rain down upon them, and then quite a bit more. The sky’s the limit! Bombs away, no holding back! Full scale assault, take no prisoners!!!

Let’s GO WILD!!! with the blaming and shaming we can’t help but do, but let’s aim the weapon far more intelligently.

Face it, there’s part of us that wants to hate. Ok, but let’s not be idiots too.

 

[1neophyte]

Fair colored.

Yes, I know many or most members will consider my proposal above to be a flight of fantasy. But that’s only because they haven’t fully studied their Catholic history, and so they’ve forgotten how often Catholics have been the target of the same kind of ugly nonsense often being trumpeted in these threads.

I suggest a constructive solution. Most of us with Catholic DNA, me included, have an incurable need to point the finger, to judge, and sometimes condemn. Let’s accept this as a fact of life.

The question should be, at whom do we aim this powerful weapon? How do we make the very best use of this tool, and limit it’s destructive aspects?

We do so by aiming the finger of blame and shame at far more worthy enemies than gay people trying to love each other and start families.

My favorite enemy is the tobacco companies. I propose that they richly deserve all the blame and shame we can rain down upon them, and then quite a bit more. The sky’s the limit! Bombs away, no holding back! Full scale assault, take no prisoners!!!

Let’s GO WILD!!! with the blaming and shaming we can’t help but do, but let’s aim the weapon far more intelligently.

Face it, there’s part of us that wants to hate. Ok, but let’s not be idiots too.

Why on earth would you want to fight against the tobacco companies? They provide a service to many people of good will who are simply trying to live their lives, and just happen to enjoy smoking. What business is it of yours if someone chooses to smoke, as long as it doesn’t affect you? You should really work on your need to judge and condemn and hate. Let’s not be idiots.

 

[Ormond]

Why on earth would you want to fight against the tobacco companies? They provide a service to many people of good will who are simply trying to live their lives, and just happen to enjoy smoking.

The service the tobacco companies provide is a very deliberate carefully engineered premature death, on a mass scale.

What business is it of yours if someone chooses to smoke, as long as it doesn’t affect you?

Ah, what business is it of mine? You realize of course that you just pulled the rug out from under Catholic moral proclamations, right?

You should really work on your need to judge and condemn and hate. Let’s not be idiots.

Now this I agree with.

But you might notice that I am judging others, and you are judging me, and a great deal of this Catholic forum is about judging, judging, judging. I’m just trying to aim all this judging of which I am a part at better targets than consenting adults who wish to love each other and raise a family.

If you don’t like tobacco companies, how about reckless drivers? They kill thousands every year, and we could easily be among the dead at any time. How about reckless greedy Wall Street bankers who have repeatedly crashed the economy thus heaping tons of suffering, and sometimes death, upon millions of entirely innocent people?

There are so many better targets of our judgment than gays, we could go on for months listing them all.

 

[1neophyte]

The service the tobacco companies provide is a very deliberate carefully engineered premature death, on a mass scale.

Ah, what business is it of mine? You realize of course that you just pulled the rug out from under Catholic moral proclamations, right?

Now this I agree with.

But you might notice that I am judging others, and you are judging me, and a great deal of this Catholic forum is about judging, judging, judging. I’m just trying to aim all this judging of which I am a part at better targets than consenting adults who wish to love each other and raise a family.

If you don’t like tobacco companies, how about reckless drivers? They kill thousands every year, and we could easily be among the dead at any time. How about reckless greedy Wall Street bankers who have repeatedly crashed the economy thus heaping tons of suffering, and sometimes death, upon millions of entirely innocent people?

There are so many better targets of our judgment than gays, we could go on for months listing them all.

It is merely your opinion that tobacco companies are a better “target”. The industry is made up of consenting adults who are just trying to run a business, serving consenting adults who choose to use their product. What makes your assessment of the situation more accurate than theirs? If you ask any reckless driver why they drive recklessly, they will tell you to mind your own business. We are all free to abstain from driving if we don’t wish to put our lives at risk. Wall Street bankers who profit from the poverty and suffering of others are simply following the principles of survival of the fittest. Who are you to judge them for their success?

Unless you’re saying that there is an objective morality that goes beyond your own opinions and conclusions…

 

[exnihilo]

Using the USSR as a role model is not good. As for the arguments, I’ll list yours and then the secular counter-argument.

I don’t hold them up as a role model. I use them to point out even atheists can realize the laws of nature.

1: Marriage is necessary for raising children: Single parents and non-married couples have raised children to be model citizens so it is not necessaey. In addition there are married couples without children so children aren’t essential.

It isn’t strictly necessary any more then a medical care is strictly necessary for health. I’d say it is necessary to properly or best raise children. Children can be raised in other circumstances. But they are all inferior and thus the child will, absolutely, be lacking in something. That some children turn out well doesn’t mean it is the best way to raise them.

2: Children ideally are raised by their mother and father: Adopted children have been raised as model citizens by adoptive parents. We also live in a non-ideal world so an adoptive same sex couple is preferable than the system.for raising children and same sex parents have raised model citizens.

Adopted children still suffer a depravation of being raised by their true parents. The circumstances may well be better then any other alternative. An adoptive same sex couple is a serious depravation to the child and it also places the child in a home where gross immorality is occurring.

3: SS relations are sterile and need no recognition: We have sterile marrird couples that are recognized. Why not SS couples? Plus marriage comes with additional benefits that are sought by two people in love with each other such as end-of-life decisions and medical coverage on the same plan.

This is like saying some people have four or six fingers (counting the thumb as a finger) so maybe having four or six fingers is just as good as five. A sterile married couple is an abnormality. But even then it is in accord with nature. A same sex couple is violating the laws of nature. They don’t approximate a married couple any more than a brother and sister living together do.

I used to be pro-gay marriage and I used to laugh at the silly arguments made against it. Frankly I still find secular arguments against it to be stretching it. Religious reasoning has brought me against it personally, but I find no justification for its institutional abolishment, just laws in the grey area that it conflicts with religious beliefs. You need God if you want to argue against it as an institution.

I strongly disagree. Marriage is completely defensible from Natural Law. Natural Law isn’t very popular these days because of the supremacy of the will.

How did they try to destroy the family?

By laws that harmed it.

 

[1neophyte]

By laws that harmed it.

Oh, now I see.

 

[mVitus]

I don’t hold them up as a role model. I use them to point out even atheists can realize the laws of nature.

It isn’t strictly necessary any more then a medical care is strictly necessary for health. I’d say it is necessary to properly or best raise children. Children can be raised in other circumstances. But they are all inferior and thus the child will, absolutely, be lacking in something. That some children turn out well doesn’t mean it is the best way to raise them.

Adopted children still suffer a depravation of being raised by their true parents. The circumstances may well be better then any other alternative. An adoptive same sex couple is a serious depravation to the child and it also places the child in a home where gross immorality is occurring.

This is like saying some people have four or six fingers (counting the thumb as a finger) so maybe having four or six fingers is just as good as five. A sterile married couple is an abnormality. But even then it is in accord with nature. A same sex couple is violating the laws of nature. They don’t approximate a married couple any more than a brother and sister living together do.

I strongly disagree. Marriage is completely defensible from Natural Law. Natural Law isn’t very popular these days because of the supremacy of the will.

By laws that harmed it.

Before reading the rest of this post, bear in mknd that I agree, through religious logic, that the Church’s stance is correct. The point of the arguments I’m about to make is to demonstrate why it’s not secularly wrong. The nubering is in line with my prior numbering.

1: If they’re lacking in those circumstances, then I suppose we ought to take them out of such depraved homes and put them into the system. Or are those depraved circumstances better than the system? And if those circumstances are better than the system, then we should advocate children to placed in those circumstances as opposed to the system. Besides, many chikdren come out damaged from the traditional family anyways, what with high divorces rates as one reason. Shoukd we take those failed examples as arguments against raising children in a married home, or should we accept that the bad resukts in other cases don’t negate the validity of those circumstances?

2: What makes a family of two loving people more depraved than the system? And homosexual acts aren’t grossly immoral. They’re between to consenting adults to the mutual benefit and enjoyment of the two. (Remeber I realize that statement to be wrong, by religious reasons, but secular logic sees nothing wrong with it.)

3: Well if being in accord with nature is important, let’s get rid of electricity, medicine, houses, and all our technology. It’s not in accord with nature. Plus homosexual sex is prevalent among bonobos, our closest living relative bilogically speaking, so boom, we’re in accord with nature. And if you bring up lions eating cubs as a reason we shouldn’t loot at nature, why did you bring up being in accord with nature in the first place? Besides, SS is in accord with its own nature to be attracted to their own sex and doesn’t deprive others of being attracted to the opposite sex. As for the brother sister thing, what’s the difference between them and non-familial love? And why is a sterile couple different than SS?

Like I said, you need God’s law to argue against same sex marriage.

 

[Faithdancer]

Before reading the rest of this post, bear in mknd that I agree, through religious logic, that the Church’s stance is correct. The point of the arguments I’m about to make is to demonstrate why it’s not secularly wrong. The nubering is in line with my prior numbering.

1: If they’re lacking in those circumstances, then I suppose we ought to take them out of such depraved homes and put them into the system. Or are those depraved circumstances better than the system? And if those circumstances are better than the system, then we should advocate children to placed in those circumstances as opposed to the system. Besides, many chikdren come out damaged from the traditional family anyways, what with high divorces rates as one reason. Shoukd we take those failed examples as arguments against raising children in a married home, or should we accept that the bad resukts in other cases don’t negate the validity of those circumstances?

2: What makes a family of two loving people more depraved than the system? And homosexual acts aren’t grossly immoral. They’re between to consenting adults to the mutual benefit and enjoyment of the two. (Remeber I realize that statement to be wrong, by religious reasons, but secular logic sees nothing wrong with it.)

3: Well if being in accord with nature is important, let’s get rid of electricity, medicine, houses, and all our technology. It’s not in accord with nature. Plus homosexual sex is prevalent among bonobos, our closest living relative bilogically speaking, so boom, we’re in accord with nature. And if you bring up lions eating cubs as a reason we shouldn’t loot at nature, why did you bring up being in accord with nature in the first place? Besides, SS is in accord with its own nature to be attracted to their own sex and doesn’t deprive others of being attracted to the opposite sex. As for the brother sister thing, what’s the difference between them and non-familial love? And why is a sterile couple different than SS?

Like I said, you need God’s law to argue against same sex marriage.

You just conflated “Natural Law” with “nature.”

 

[mVitus]

You just conflated “Natural Law” with “nature.”

I’m offering up the secular counterarguments to demonstrate why I don’t see any secular argument against gay marriage, which are need to overturn something in a secular court of law. Please refute them if you see a way to do so.

 

[Faithdancer]

I’m offering up the secular counterarguments to demonstrate why I don’t see any secular argument against gay marriage, which are need to overturn something in a secular court of law. Please refute them if you see a way to do so.

I don’t see any need to do so. Holy Scripture and nearly 2000 years of teachings are more than sufficient. The burden of proof is on those who support same sex “marriage” to prove that it accords with God’s will.

 

[exnihilo]

Before reading the rest of this post, bear in mknd that I agree, through religious logic, that the Church’s stance is correct. The point of the arguments I’m about to make is to demonstrate why it’s not secularly wrong. The nubering is in line with my prior numbering.

Understood.

1: If they’re lacking in those circumstances, then I suppose we ought to take them out of such depraved homes and put them into the system. Or are those depraved circumstances better than the system? And if those circumstances are better than the system, then we should advocate children to placed in those circumstances as opposed to the system. Besides, many chikdren come out damaged from the traditional family anyways, what with high divorces rates as one reason. Shoukd we take those failed examples as arguments against raising children in a married home, or should we accept that the bad resukts in other cases don’t negate the validity of those circumstances?

When considering less then ideal situations, which is all, then we do have to weigh the relative pros and cons of those situations. A real family can indeed have many problems. Some of the problems can be sufficient to warrant removal of children. But again, this doesn’t change the fact that an in tact biological family is the best place for children to be raised. So when considering same sex couples we need to consider how it compares to other options to raise kids. It is possible a same sex couple could be the best place to raise kids. An example would be a desert island with only that same sex couple and the kids in question. If a person doesn’t see homosexuality as a problem then they won’t see a same sex couple as a problem.

2: What makes a family of two loving people more depraved than the system? And homosexual acts aren’t grossly immoral. They’re between to consenting adults to the mutual benefit and enjoyment of the two. (Remeber I realize that statement to be wrong, by religious reasons, but secular logic sees nothing wrong with it.)

Love isn’t sufficient to make a good environment. Two biological parents could love each other but be neglectful of their children.

Of course the issue hinges on whether homosexual acts are moral. Consent isn’t sufficient to make an act moral. For instance I doubt anyone would say a man can consent to sell himself into slavery.

3: Well if being in accord with nature is important, let’s get rid of electricity, medicine, houses, and all our technology. It’s not in accord with nature. Plus homosexual sex is prevalent among bonobos, our closest living relative bilogically speaking, so boom, we’re in accord with nature. And if you bring up lions eating cubs as a reason we shouldn’t loot at nature, why did you bring up being in accord with nature in the first place? Besides, SS is in accord with its own nature to be attracted to their own sex and doesn’t deprive others of being attracted to the opposite sex. As for the brother sister thing, what’s the difference between them and non-familial love? And why is a sterile couple different than SS?

Like I said, you need God’s law to argue against same sex marriage.

I’d rather get rid of all his technology than live in a world where SSM is accepted and praised. Of course as you know that is a misunderstanding of Natural Law.

I don’t disagree that there are arguments presented against the good arguments for ruling out SSM. But they are really bad arguments. If what you are driving at is a good number of the population, maybe a majority, is extremely irrational then I won’t disagree. We live in dangerous times because man has abandoned his reason and sunk to the level of the beast.

 

[Elf01]

I don’t see any need to do so. Holy Scripture and nearly 2000 years of teachings are more than sufficient. The burden of proof is on those who support same sex “marriage” to prove that it accords with God’s will.

I think that you’ve just proven mVitus’ point. The argument against SSM is religious.

 

[mVitus]

Understood.

When considering less then ideal situations, which is all, then we do have to weigh the relative pros and cons of those situations. A real family can indeed have many problems. Some of the problems can be sufficient to warrant removal of children. But again, this doesn’t change the fact that an in tact biological family is the best place for children to be raised. So when considering same sex couples we need to consider how it compares to other options to raise kids. It is possible a same sex couple could be the best place to raise kids. An example would be a desert island with only that same sex couple and the kids in question. If a person doesn’t see homosexuality as a problem then they won’t see a same sex couple as a problem.

Love isn’t sufficient to make a good environment. Two biological parents could love each other but be neglectful of their children.

Of course the issue hinges on whether homosexual acts are moral. Consent isn’t sufficient to make an act moral. For instance I doubt anyone would say a man can consent to sell himself into slavery.

I’d rather get rid of all his technology than live in a world where SSM is accepted and praised. Of course as you know that is a misunderstanding of Natural Law.

I don’t disagree that there are arguments presented against the good arguments for ruling out SSM. But they are really bad arguments. If what you are driving at is a good number of the population, maybe a majority, is extremely irrational then I won’t disagree. We live in dangerous times because man has abandoned his reason and sunk to the level of the beast.

@Faith: The easy secular argument is that there are religions which approve of homosexuality. In addition the secular argument will point out that atheists are accepting of homosexuality in general, hence there’s no intrinsic evil.

1: And the secular argument has put forth that a gay couple, especially one with more resources than the child would have otherwise [which is quite often when it comes to foreign adoption], is better than no couple.

2: I suppose I should clarify to two loving people that are willing to parent. As for the slavery analogy, I’d suppose the secular counterargument is that slavery reduces a person’s rights whereas homosexuality does not.

3: The secular argument has to stand up to atheistic arguments. Hence natural law has to be rigorously argued before it’s even potentially usable. While the CC can use natural law against sodomy, oral sex, masturbation, ect., there’s no secular way to say those are bad actions, even though natural law says they are. (And any objections of health can be answered with: Excessive use can be detrimental, but moderate use isn’t.)