Thanks. You are probably right.I think their argument will be the same as lolraichu’s. They will not accept the premise. They will view marriage as an evolving institution and will make comparisons (as faulty as they are) to working mothers, women’s right to vote, and, of course, slavery. Just warning you, this will turn into a “Are Catholics Bigoted and Intolerant for not Allowing Gay Marriage” type of debate, but with a slight twist.
That was not my point. I was trying to make a more fundamental point - i.e. that marriage necessarily requires complimentarity of sex (male and femal), just as “mother” requires female gender, and redefining either to include more would rob the relationship of defining characteristics.First of all, in response to this person, I can’t help but laugh at youI love seeing bigots get all upset when they don’t get their way.
To the original poster, what I’m inferring from your post, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that at the end of the day a man cannot truly be a mother and vice versa, and that these are both essential factors in raising a healthy child, (and this is where I’m really inferring, so forgive me if I’m mistaken), therefore, one problem with allowing gay marriage is that if a child were to be adopted by a gay married couple it would not be good for the child because he or she is not fully getting the twofold aspects of parenting that a child needs.
If that is what you’re saying, I would respond by saying show me some legitimate data or studies that show that without a true mother figure and a true father figure, the child’s upbringing will not be good, or as good as it could be, etc…
Also, If my inference is correct, I would say, should a Defax van come take away a child from its family if one of the child’s straight parents happens to die?
If I’m totally wrong with my inference, please correct me.
By definition a mother is a female who has given birth to a child so the answer is no a man can never be a mother.
Marriage is about the legitimacy of a sexual union between husband and wife. Children are the natural result of this union. It is only in the mind of a person who has completely divorced the notion of sexuality from procreation that one can even come close to suggesting that marriage has nothing to do with children. It’s a tragedy that we’ve so clouded our sexuality in this way.
I’m not suggesting that children are required to legitimize a marriage. Nor am I suggesting that marriage is a prerequisite to procreation. To the contrary, my point is that marriage is an institution that is oriented toward procreation and rearing children. A “gay marriage” by definition cannot be oriented towards procreation, because the sexual union that it seeks to legitimize cannot be a fruitful one.
My argument does not rely on Church teaching. Your comment is a non sequitur.
You have it backwards. I’m not suggesting that children are only allowed within a marriage. Rather, marriage is an institution that nurtures and supports the conception and raising of children.
Of course, this has nothing to do with the point I was making. I was analogizing the redefining of marriage with the redefining of motherhood. A man can no more be a real mother, than two men can be a real married couple, without first sapping the unique character of the word. When that happens, you might as well call a marriage a partnership. There’s no longer a difference.
Children are the natural result of procreation, not marriage. Once again supporters of Gay Marriage are trying to get the law of the land amended. Not Church Law. What the Catholic Church thinks of Marriage has no more or less impact then what Protestants, Jews, Muslims, or Atheists think.
Marriage is an institution that is oriented towards supporting people in having and raising children. -As well as other things-. It is those other things that Gay couples seek to participate in. Just like an infertile/sterile couple that marries. They are not getting married for Marriage’s benefits towards raising children, but for other reasons.
What does it rely on then?
Would you agree it is not -solely- such?
I’m not relying on church law. To the extent you keep suggesting I am, you are incorrect. My argument relies upon natural law. It’s not a “Catholic only” position. Marriage is oriented towards procreation and rearing of Children. Same sex unions are not. Therefore, same sex unions lack the essential element of marriage.
Same sex couples can have some of the benefits of marriage. But because their union lacks the essential characteristics of a marriage, it would be a lie to say that a same sex union is a marriage
Natural law, empirical evidence, and logic.
I will concede that there are elements in common between a same sex unions and a marriage. But that does not make a same sex union a marriage any more than flour and baking soda make a biscuit a birthday cake. In other words, same sex unions lack the unique characteristics of marriage, even though they may have some other elements in common, like two people with real feelings towards each other, and a commitment to share their lives with the other.
What is this Natural Law you keep referring to? I can find no reference to Marriage here. Please tell me what and/or where you’re getting your understanding of Natural Law from.
What is your objection, if any, to giving Civil Unions the same benefits as Marriage?
Right reason, common sense, logic, and the long history of marriage that never included same sex persons posing as a mother and father.
It’s the concept of Natural Law discussed in your link:
EviP:
My objection arises from the portrayal of two clearly different forms of relationship (Marital and Same-sex union) as being essentially indistinguishable. On a legal level, I have no problem with giving homosexual couples the right to register as domestic partners. In CA, this is already the law, and it passed with relatively little outcry. The point at which I dissent is where one wrongly concludes there is no real difference between marital unions and homosexual unions, when human nature, and reason, dictate that there is a clear difference.
Natural law. (see above.) It’s obvious just from the observation of marriage, and what it has been throughout history. It is the pro-gay-marriage side that seems to ignore the procreative aspect of marriage, and focuses myopically upon only the unitive aspects.
the issues that spurred them are often no longer "hot" or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.