III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON
AGAINST LEGAL RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
From the biological and anthropological order
- Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
The complete article includes argument from the right order of reason, the social order and the legal order. I debated whether to quote just the most pertinent bit or only give the link. Seems it would have been better to only give the link only so that people would read the complete document because it is really not something that can be reduced to a couple of paragraphs.GraceSophia - The Ecclesial argument you provide bolsters an argument, however it is biassed opinion and conjecture, generalized statements with no supporting rationale for the Church’s position.
Of course, a marriage is not considered illegitimate because the couple happens to be infertile. The evidence from human history is that babies are born from the union of a female and a male. That is the normal; exceptions don’t make the rule. But the rule is that babies never come from the union of two homosexuals.Other than inability for homosexual couples to procurate by ways of natural means. One wonders, “What of the couples who marry and decide not to bear offspring. Is their marriage considered legitimate?”
I could say the same to you.Seeming is not alwaysthe way of truth.
Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.
Thus, the Church’s teaching today is in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition. Though today’s world is in many ways quite new, the Christian community senses the profound and lasting bonds which join us to those generations who have gone before us, “marked with the sign of faith”.
Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.
A study presented at the symposium in Mexico, “Homosexual Adoption: What Science Has Discovered,” revealed that most children adopted by same-sex couples display “greater levels of stress,” and suffer from “suicidal tendencies and attempts.”
…]
Oscar Rivas, president of Renacer, underscored that “according to international experience, based on various studies and research, the conclusion is that in matters of adoption, the rights of the children, not those of the parents, are what should prevail.”
The symposium in Mexico took place after lawmakers in the Legislative Assembly of Mexico City approved reforms allowing homosexual adoption. The study by Professor George A. Rekers was the basis for rulings in the state of Florida prohibiting the adoption of minors by same-sex couples
Excuse me, but this just isn’t the case. There are many children waiting for a home. Special needs children particularly have a hard time getting adopted. In an ideal world the no-gay-adoptions position might have some merit. This is not an ideal world.There are thousands, probably tens of thousands of hetrosexual couples wanting to adopt. When there are so few children to adopt, why should society allow these precious children to be dumped in the kind of home two gays would provide?