Defending a Higher Law: Why We Must Resist Same-sex “Marriage”

[Elizabeth502]

^Not to mention, there is nothing loving or charitable about deliberately depriving a child of an opportunity (if even later in childhood) to have parents of both genders. Nor is it charitable to expose him socially, to have to “explain” to his peers why he has 2 Daddies or 2 Mommies whereas the rest of the human race most naturally has one of each.

I believe in allowing rescue adoptions for truly extreme situations, by one gay person who is not practicing the lifestyle and who has a variety of genuine friends and relatives of the opposite sex who will take a major part in the child’s life – and if no heterosexual couple is available or interested in adopting. But contrary to all the hysteria and hype, there really are not many situations so extreme like that, calling for emergency adoptions.

Any gay person who truly wants to adopt, as a single, unattached person, and as an act of altruism rather than self-satisfaction, can seek out such situations among Third World abandoned or parent-less children, such as those victimized by war, etc.

 

[cjellis27]

I have to admit that this issue is one of my biggest stumbling blocks with my Catholic faith. I have many gay friends, most of which are in monogamous relationships. I often see the love between them and think, “how can this be bad?” How could Jesus not accept two people in love. People that were born of the grace of God the way that they are, loving those of the same sex. I am certainly against promiscuous sex, but that is with both straight and homosexual peoples. I understand the church teaching that there is no such things as homosexuality, just same sex attraction. However, I fear all the children and young adults who “come out” and are not accepted and embraced by their family, friends, and their community. Some turn to drugs or other risky behaviors, because they cannot find peace without support. As Pope Benedict has written, God Is Love. How could he turn his back on his gay children? His depressed children? His impoverished children?

 

[Benadam]

I have to admit that this issue is one of my biggest stumbling blocks with my Catholic faith. I have many gay friends, most of which are in monogamous relationships. I often see the love between them and think, “how can this be bad?” How could Jesus not accept two people in love. People that were born of the grace of God the way that they are, loving those of the same sex. I am certainly against promiscuous sex, but that is with both straight and homosexual peoples. I understand the church teaching that there is no such things as homosexuality, just same sex attraction. However, I fear all the children and young adults who “come out” and are not accepted and embraced by their family, friends, and their community. Some turn to drugs or other risky behaviors, because they cannot find peace without support. As Pope Benedict has written, God Is Love. How could he turn his back on his gay children? His depressed children? His impoverished children?

It must be one of the heaviest crosses to carry. To be right with Our Lord one is called to abandon an urge that if satisfied properly, so much of who we are is satisfied as well. I really can’t imagine. It’s not really about moral sexual behaviour applied to same sex acts, monogamy, fidelity and such. It’s about what we are and becoming desensitized to what we are supposed to be. Same sex attraction is a disorder but who’s soul has come into the world undistorted? I got my own distortions that are most likely as bad or worse. Unfortunately to suffer the distortion that causes same sex attraction has got to be one of the most tangled because it distorts the decent of God’s love from parents to children and from husbands to wives.

Love is the dynamic that is supposed to cement all relationships into permanent mutual veneration. The matrimonial bond is characterized by oneness and because of that the two that become one must in fact be a microcosm of something greater that in fact exists as one. For a bond to be matrimonial it must be a microcosm of all humanity. Two people of the same sex can’t become one because there is nothing that exists for it to be one of. Their love as friends can’t enter into a oneness that doesn’t exist. They at best can be two that become half of a whole. but that is what one of them are anyway. This is the nature of the matrimonial bond because it’s purpose is to create an environment for little humans to enter the world in. It’s only fair that they enter a microcosm of the whole world so they are familiar with the whole world.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Beautifully said, Benadam.

I will not make any pretensions about improving on that. I think your expression is superior to what I could say on this.

To sum up, though, I think there are several issues in the public debate over this. Even if it is believed that people are “born gay” (subject of another thread) and that could be “proven” (has not been, as of yet), having an orientation, even if “determined,” “predestined” and fixed (permanent) – that still does not entitle an individual to claim a certain state, membership in a particular social institution which was created for purposes that benefit all of society, but particularly a certain segment (children, the most vulnerable & dependent members of society, relying on persons of calm judgment & perspective to take into account their long-term needs and not merely the whims of a particular group wanting society’s recognition and the financial benefits deriving from a label). There’s nothing “inalienable” about a “right” to marry. It is a benefit – not a right – granted by governing bodies to particular members who meet particular membership qualifications. Liberty is not unlimited, but modified by the liberties of others (again, including children). The pursuit of happiness is not dependent on illicit privileges to redefine for all of society and the generations that follow, a state and a lifestyle that the majority has determined has a particular purpose.

I’m very conflicted about civil unions. On the one hand, because I also know many wonderful gay people – one in particular being a close family friend, like a brother to me-- and I feel compassion, like Benadam does (which we are required to do by our faith as well), I have no wish for them to feel suffering. My impulse is to want the state to grant civil union benefits (i.e., all the 50 states) for those who wish it & want to apply. Yet I can see the argument from the other side about the fine line between the two categories, and the message being sent. (“No difference” – or, a technical difference only). Also I can see the concern that anyone might have about discouraging in general the commitment to marry. (If gays get civil unions, why can’t two straights who merely cohabit?) In that case, distinctions are meaningless or at least minor, and there’s no privilege or benefit attached to marriage. That is (partly) what people are talking about when they say ‘Gay marriage’ cheapens or makes insignificant my straight marriage.

That is separate from any financial burden on gov’ts, but certainly that is a separate issue to some people.

Just wanted to clarify this, since I’ve been wrongly accused of something on another thread and I do not sit well with being mischaracterized in my position, beliefs, opinions.
Peace, E.

 

[Benadam]

I’m very conflicted about civil unions. On the one hand, because I also know many wonderful gay people – one in particular being a close family friend, like a brother to me-- and I feel compassion, like Benadam does (which we are required to do by our faith as well), I have no wish for them to feel suffering. My impulse is to want the state to grant civil union benefits (i.e., all the 50 states) for those who wish it & want to apply. Yet I can see the argument from the other side about the fine line between the two categories, and the message being sent. (“No difference” – or, a technical difference only). Also I can see the concern that anyone might have about discouraging in general the commitment to marry. (If gays get civil unions, why can’t two straights who merely cohabit?) In that case, distinctions are meaningless or at least minor, and there’s no privilege or benefit attached to marriage. That is (partly) what people are talking about when they say ‘Gay marriage’ cheapens or makes insignificant my straight marriage.

.

Thank you Elizabeth. You swayed me on civil unions If memory serves, the issue of allowing civil unions was the subject of our first exchange. At the time I was ok with it. Now, like you I’m undecided. I’m leaning toward no if it is in the context of the matrimonial bond. Yes if it is not. If that is even possible.

Since the success of a civil society was dependant on fidelity to the matrimonial bond civil society has a vested interest in it. Love just isn’t a good eneogh reason for civil society to have a vested interest in protecting friends with deep emotional ties…