Good secular arguments against Homosexual marriage?

[JimG]

Msgr. Pope does not give a ‘secular’ argument against same sex marriage, but he does give the Catholic Church’s teaching on the matter in his blog post here.

 

[kozlosap]

First of all, let me say that this is my first post here. Let me also say that I am gay and the reason I came to this forum was to test the waters, so to speak. You see, I left Christianity as a teenager (I am now 26) and I have spent a long time searching spiritually, including within neopaganism. Neopaganism ultimately felt empty to me and I’ve only recently realized that perhaps going back to my roots might help, and since I have begun that exploration I have felt a deep calm like I have not felt in a long time. I truly feel I belong in the Church though I have never been baptized. I remember as a child going to Mass occasionally and feeling so at peace.

I also understand the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. The Church acknowledges that it is not a choice but maintains that since sexual actions between persons of the same sex cannot result in the birth of a child, they are inherently “against” the natural order of man, woman, child. To properly understand the Church’s teaching, you must divorce yourself from the fundamentalist notion that homosexuality is somehow “gross”, “disgusting”, “weird”, etc. You must divorce yourself from the idea that there is something wrong with BEING gay. You are, and this the Church and Christ talking, commanded to respect and love each and every person as they were your brother and sister. The Church’s teachings should not be treated as a bully pulpit, nor should they be used as a bludgeon against all who are not perfect and whole (because not one of us is). Some of you sound more at home in a fiery charismatic non-denominational setting than members of the one holy, catholic church.

To be a Catholic, in my mind, is not to crusade as once was done. It is to stand firm but also to yield with the wind. That means that if you want to attract more people to the Church (and to God), you must stop speaking from bigotry (even if that is not the intent, some posts here are couched in it) and speak from understanding. I AM gay. I AM a person. My partner and I DO occasionally do things the Church does not approve of, just as many heterosexuals masturbate, just as many straight couples use birth control. These are all essentially the same “disordered” acts because they involve sexual acts that do not result in birth, and singling out gays with the gusto and fire that some of you do makes me seriously question your whether you’re using Church teachings as an excuse to mask your bigotry or if you are so hurtful and crude toward your relatives and friends who are guilty of these things.

I am planning to begin RCIA soon (a little late, but hey now better than never). I do not intend to yield on this but I will be deferent and respectful. I would encourage many of you to take that to heart.

Also there is no legitimate secular argument against gay marriage because secularism inherently accepts naturalism and science as adequate guides for understanding the world. Thus, any secular argument against gay marriage must argue that gay persons are somehow unnatural entities, when the body of science we have disagrees. Even the Church disagrees on that point.

Just my (overly long) 2 cents. /QUOTE

First of all, Welcome to CAF! Your very first post was very heartfelt- thank you! I’m a straight older person (61) who struggles horribly with the Churchs’ teaching on gay issues. From your post, it is quite obvious that you are seeking peace within the Body of Christ and making progress. I’m praying that you continue to attend mass and find joy in your personal life, but I’m also still praying that someday the CC will recognize both straight and gay committed relationships as being equal in value.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Originally Posted by DrTaffy View Post
Could you explain what you mean by someone being “physically heterosexual”?

Yeah, that was my question too. I suspect it is to support the idea that same sex attraction is a resolvable affliction sitting on top of the true heterosexual person “underneath”. The idea of requiring the individual to “self-define” himself, rather than just experience the attractions, seems to hint at the idea SSA is a “belief” of the individual, rather than a reality.

For my part, I have no idea what causes SSA.

Physically heterosexual…

Suppose a gay man and a straight man were undergoing a routine physical examination that included blood work and x-rays. How could the doctor determine which one is gay?

Answer: He could not. If it were necessary, the doctor would have to ask…or both men would have to “DEFINE” themselves as per their sexual attractions.

Rau:

I am with you…I too, have no idea what causes SSA. I know that for almost 100 years, up to 1973, it was considered a mental problem and treated as such. That was before the inmates took over the asylum and the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual.

So we have a dilemma. There exists an abnormal condition with no unusual physical or genetic manifestations affecting a small number of humans worldwide…and the APA does not consider it a mental condition…what is it???

 

[Della]

First of all, let me say that this is my first post here. Let me also say that I am gay and the reason I came to this forum was to test the waters, so to speak. You see, I left Christianity as a teenager (I am now 26) and I have spent a long time searching spiritually, including within neopaganism. Neopaganism ultimately felt empty to me and I’ve only recently realized that perhaps going back to my roots might help, and since I have begun that exploration I have felt a deep calm like I have not felt in a long time. I truly feel I belong in the Church though I have never been baptized. I remember as a child going to Mass occasionally and feeling so at peace.

Many have come on the same path and have also found peace when experiencing the Mass. It’s the Real Presence of Christ the Eucharist that you sensed.

I also understand the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. The Church acknowledges that it is not a choice but maintains that since sexual actions between persons of the same sex cannot result in the birth of a child, they are inherently “against” the natural order of man, woman, child. To properly understand the Church’s teaching, you must divorce yourself from the fundamentalist notion that homosexuality is somehow “gross”, “disgusting”, “weird”, etc. You must divorce yourself from the idea that there is something wrong with BEING gay. You are, and this the Church and Christ talking, commanded to respect and love each and every person as they were your brother and sister. The Church’s teachings should not be treated as a bully pulpit, nor should they be used as a bludgeon against all who are not perfect and whole (because not one of us is). Some of you sound more at home in a fiery charismatic non-denominational setting than members of the one holy, catholic church.

Certainly the Church recognizes the struggles of those with SSA. All persons, no matter who they are deserve respect because all of us are created in God’s image and are worthy of dignity. On the whole I agree with you here.

To be a Catholic, in my mind, is not to crusade as once was done. It is to stand firm but also to yield with the wind. That means that if you want to attract more people to the Church (and to God), you must stop speaking from bigotry (even if that is not the intent, some posts here are couched in it) and speak from understanding.

I know no one of my acquintance who speaks from any sort of bigotry. If they point out the disadvantages of the gay lifestyle or cite Church teaching that is not being bigoted. Not being gay perhaps I have been shielded from abuse. I certainly have been an abuse victim in other areas of my life, so I can sympathize somewhat.

I AM gay. I AM a person. My partner and I DO occasionally do things the Church does not approve of, just as many heterosexuals masturbate, just as many straight couples use birth control. These are all essentially the same “disordered” acts because they involve sexual acts that do not result in birth, and singling out gays with the gusto and fire that some of you do makes me seriously question your whether you’re using Church teachings as an excuse to mask your bigotry or if you are so hurtful and crude toward your relatives and friends who are guilty of these things.

As to your statement that you and your partner doing things of which the Church does not approve, and then stating that it’s no different from other forms of sexual sin, you are right about that. But this does not mean that anyone has any right to go on sinning merely because others do so. Before entering RCIA you need to get this settled between you and your partner and the parish priest.

I am planning to begin RCIA soon (a little late, but hey now better than never). I do not intend to yield on this but I will be deferent and respectful. I would encourage many of you to take that to heart.

Whether we take you intentions to heart or not no faithful Catholic can condone your intentions to go on living as a sexual partner with another man. You cannot sweep this under the rug and pretend this isn’t an issue before entering the Church because when baptized and confirmed you’ll declare you believe in all that the Church teaches and that you intend to live by those teachings.

Also there is no legitimate secular argument against gay marriage because secularism inherently accepts naturalism and science as adequate guides for understanding the world. Thus, any secular argument against gay marriage must argue that gay persons are somehow unnatural entities, when the body of science we have disagrees. Even the Church disagrees on that point.

Just my (overly long) 2 cents.

Secularism does not accept naturalism and science. If it did it could not condone homosexual sex because it goes against what is inherent in man’s nature. Society has had to redefine marriage to make same sex relations seem natural, but it simply isn’t no matter how much some might want it to be. Anyone can legally have any relationship with another if they want to, but society cannot change the definition of marriage because it simply is what it is, and not something else.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The most common secular arguments against it are:

• that it undermines traditional marriage (I don’t see how)
• that society is better off with a mom and dad (duh. but that doesn’t make gay people un-gay, and lots of kids are in one-parent homes or horrible mom and dad homes. Allowing gays to have civil unions (which is what we all have in the eyes of the state)…will not turn more people gay or deprive any kid of a mom and dad home.)

Bottom line: there are no good secular arguments against it.

You left out the big ones…

1. A re-definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage is beyond the competence of the state, because marriage both precedes the state and is a necessary condition for the continuation of the state (because future generations arise from and are formed in marriage).
   When a state enacts a law saying that a same-sex relationship can constitute a marriage, it has the power to enforce that in a society’s external practices, but it is devoid of any intrinsic moral legitimacy and is a contrary to any natural reality.
2. The benefits and duties conferred on marriage simply respond to the reality that the state cannot exist without families who will bring into existence the next generations. Those who advance a view of the family that is subordinate to and dependent upon the state for its existence turn the relationship of the family and state upside down. The family itself is the first cell of society, from which the state receives its existence. In a very real sense, the state exists to serve the family which has its own legitimate nature and identity.
   It is not within the power of the state, particularly a state which claims to embrace the notion of a limited government, to redefine marriage in order to advance the state’s interests in equality of treatment.

 

[MacQ]

In a very real sense, the state exists to serve the family which has its own legitimate nature and identity.
It is not within the power of the state, particularly a state which claims to embrace the notion of a limited government, to redefine marriage in order to advance the state’s interests in equality of treatment.

Hello: Equality of treatment IS a state interest, if you read the constitution.
And I think it should supercede state interests in pretty much everything else…especially an interest in begetting more taxpayers or imposing morality.

 

[Della]

Hello: Equality of treatment IS a state interest, if you read the constitution.
And I think it should supercede state interests in pretty much everything else…especially an interest in begetting more taxpayers or imposing morality.

Equality of treatment does not endow the state with the right to change the definition of marriage or family or anything else that preceded it. There are other ways to ensure equality than to rob words of their legitmate meaning and impose it on their citizens.

 

[MacQ]

Equality of treatment does not endow the state with the right to change the definition of marriage or family or anything else that preceded it. There are other ways to ensure equality than to rob words of their legitmate meaning and impose it on their citizens.

You seem to think that equality of treatment under the law is some trivial side issue. Sorry, but it is the VERY FOUNDATION of our constitution.
If some do not have rights, no one does.
You can’t carve out special populations for treatment under the laws of state.
Think about that. If the “state” can decide that your neighbor isn’t in some group who has a certain right, it can easily decide you aren’t in that group either.

And answer this:

• Why is the state in the business of defining “marriage” in the first place? The sacrament of matrimony is and should be the purview of churches (without govt interference).
• What are these “other ways” to ensure equality under the law? I am most interested to hear how you ensure equality without …ensuring equality.
• What is “imposed” on citizens if any two people (regardless of gender) can form a legal civil union (which is what all our marriages are in the eyes of the state. key word: civil). Who is hurt by that? No one. It grants “equality” under the law, which is the foundation of freedoms granted under the constitution.

 

[Della]

You seem to think that equality of treatment under the law is some trivial side issue. Sorry, but it is the VERY FOUNDATION of our constitution.
If some do not have rights, no one does.
You can’t carve out special populations for treatment under the laws of state.
Think about that. If the “state” can decide that your neighbor isn’t in some group who has a certain right, it can easily decide you aren’t in that group either.

No one is being deprived of any right by keeping marriage between a man and a woman when that is what marriage is. So you whole argument is null. Again, the state does not have the right to redefine words to make them into something else.

And answer this:

• Why is the state in the business of defining “marriage” in the first place? The sacrament of matrimony is and should be the purview of churches (without govt interference).

Marriage between a men and women had always been recognized by civil authorities as the foundation of families. The offspring of marriage has always been recognized as legally bound to the parents. There never was any reason to change that to ensure anyone’s rights.

• What are these “other ways” to ensure equality under the law? I am most interested to hear how you ensure equality without …ensuring equality.

People enter into all sorts of legal agreements for the sharing of/inheriting property and other such issues. It would be the same with SS couples. The state need not change the definition of marriage to accommodate such needs/desires.

• What is “imposed” on citizens if any two people (regardless of gender) can form a legal civil union (which is what all our marriages are in the eyes of the state. key word: civil). Who is hurt by that? No one. It grants “equality” under the law, which is the foundation of freedoms granted under the constitution.

Any two people or group of people can enter into any kind of civil agreement they want. There is nothing in law that says they can’t. There is no need to redefine marriage in order for that to happen. It is an impostion when a government changes a definition that never existed before.

 

[MacQ]

No one is being deprived of any right by keeping marriage between a man and a woman when that is what marriage is. So you whole argument is null. Again, the state does not have the right to redefine words to make them into something else.

Marriage between a men and women had always been recognized by civil authorities as the foundation of families. The offspring of marriage has always been recognized as legally bound to the parents. There never was any reason to change that to ensure anyone’s rights.

People enter into all sorts of legal agreements for the sharing of/inheriting property and other such issues. It would be the same with SS couples. The state need not change the definition of marriage to accommodate such needs/desires.

Any two people or group of people can enter into any kind of civil agreement they want. There is nothing in law that says they can’t. There is no need to redefine marriage in order for that to happen. It is an impostion when a government changes a definition that never existed before.

We will just agree to differ.
It wouldn’t bother me one bit, nor would it change ANYTHING if the government considered my “marriage” a civil union.
And confined itself to civil and legal matters, applied to everyone equally.

 

[DrTaffy]

Physically heterosexual…

Suppose a gay man and a straight man were undergoing a routine physical examination that included blood work and x-rays. How could the doctor determine which one is gay?

Answer: He could not. If it were necessary, the doctor would have to ask…or both men would have to “DEFINE” themselves as per their sexual attractions.

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t answer my question. I’m not even arguing about your assertion that gay men are “physically heterosexual” I just don’t see what that phrase means, or even what it could mean.

To answer your apparently rhetorical question, the doctor could, in fact, tell. The old fashioned way would be a “penile sphygmomanometer” - effectively a blood pressure cuff designed to fit the old Trouser Titan. A more modern take would be something like an fMRI machine monitoring the areas of the brain associated with sexual arousal. In both cases the Doctor could show the patient pictures of nubile young ladies or buff young studs and see which ones floated his boat.

There have also been studies showing physical differences in brain structure between gay and straight people, but as I understand it these differences were only on average, not so distinct as to allow one to state that this brain was gay and this one straight.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Hello: Equality of treatment IS a state interest, if you read the constitution.

I believe that question is before the Supreme Court right now.
MacQ;12359051:

And I think it should supercede state interests in pretty much everything else

…especially an interest in begetting more taxpayers or imposing morality.

What’s wrong with imposing a little morality?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I’m sorry, but that doesn’t answer my question. I’m not even arguing about your assertion that gay men are “physically heterosexual” I just don’t see what that phrase means, or even what it could mean.

It just goes back to my earlier post…

“In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same-gender conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual.”

I just added the word “physically” hoping to simplify things. Sorry about the added confusion.

To answer your apparently rhetorical question, the doctor could, in fact, tell. The old fashioned way would be a “penile sphygmomanometer” - effectively a blood pressure cuff designed to fit the old Trouser Titan. A more modern take would be something like an fMRI machine monitoring the areas of the brain associated with sexual arousal. In both cases the Doctor could show the patient pictures of nubile young ladies or buff young studs and see which ones floated his boat.

WOW!!!..no wonder “Don’t ask Don’t tell” was eliminated.

Remember I said a** routine physical examination**…not a medical S&M party.

There have also been studies showing physical differences in brain structure between gay and straight people, but as I understand it these differences were only on average, not so distinct as to allow one to state that this brain was gay and this one straight.

I am sure you will find that to be the case with all such studies. There exists no truly objective means of determining whether a person is innately homosexual.

 

[JimG]

People are either men or women. It’s an anatomical, biological characteristic. Male and female are usually obvious.

But ‘sexual orientation,’ is simply a self-identifier, indeterminable by anyone else. There’s no blood test for it. It refers to one’s sexual preferences.

Well, a lot of people have a lot of sexual preferences, a variety of them. None of them supersedes the categories of human being, male, and female.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

I’m a straight older person (61) who struggles horribly with the Churchs’ teaching on gay issues. From your post, it is quite obvious that you are seeking peace within the Body of Christ and making progress. I’m praying that you continue to attend mass and find joy in your personal life, but I’m also still praying that someday the CC will recognize both straight and gay committed relationships as being equal in value.

Homosexual sex relations are considered intrinsically disordered. Objectively sex between two unmarried persons of whatever sexual orientation is always objectively seriously immoral. Because this is bound up with the Church’s view of the relationship between the sexes, the meaning of marriage, and the theology of the Body, there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that “the CC will recognize both straight and gay committed relationships as being equal in value” if that involves having sex.

I hope you were talking about long-lasting friendships when you used the phrase “committed relationships”.

.

 

[Rau]

… I AM gay. I AM a person. My partner and I DO occasionally do things the Church does not approve of…

I agree with much of your post.

May I ask why the acts you refer to are described as “occasional”. Do both you and your partner seek to live chastely, by which I mean, without engaging in sexual acts?

 

[Rau]

People are either men or women. It’s an anatomical, biological characteristic. Male and female are usually obvious.

But ‘sexual orientation,’ is simply a self-identifier, indeterminable by anyone else. There’s no blood test for it. It refers to one’s sexual preferences.

Well, a lot of people have a lot of sexual preferences, a variety of them. None of them supersedes the categories of human being, male, and female.

Jim, while I think I understand your statement, I struggle to understand the motivation to think about sexual orientation in that way. I recognise you are saying the same thing about heterosexuality too - that this is just what the bulk of us prefer. But it is not so because we “considered the options” and decided we preferred one way versus the other. It was rather more fundamental than that. Our orientation would seem to arise from something more intrinsic than that.

Likewise, why does Zoltan see merit in declaring we are all “heterosexual” (is it because we mostly are, and because being heterosexual is consistent with the complementarity of our bodies and propagation of the species?).

You describe sexual orientation as a preference and in an objective sense, that is true. But what is driving the preference does not seem to be some arbitrary, whimsical coin toss - like, a child deciding they prefer Soccer to Football, or French language to German. Nor like a man who tries carrots and beans and decides he prefers the former. Sexual orientation is a powerful force in life and drives outlook and behaviour in pretty significant ways. It seems pretty “built-in” (even if by way of a flaw in our physical selves.)

I have no idea why people experience SSA and no OSA, when the reverse “makes more sense”. But, if one day, a biological basis for sexual orientation were to be identified, and a test could answer the question - do you experience predominately SSA - would that cause you to review your Red sentence?

 

[JimG]

Jim, while I think I understand your statement, I struggle to understand the motivation to think about sexual orientation in that way. I recognise you are saying the same thing about heterosexuality too - that this is just what the bulk of us prefer. But it is not so because we “considered the options” and decided we preferred one way versus the other. It was rather more fundamental than that. Our orientation would seem to arise from something more intrinsic than that.

Likewise, why does Zoltan see merit in declaring we are all “heterosexual” (is it because we mostly are, and because being heterosexual is consistent with the complementarity of our bodies and propagation of the species?).

You describe sexual orientation as a preference and in an objective sense, that is true. But what is driving the preference does not seem to be some arbitrary, whimsical coin toss - like, a child deciding they prefer Soccer to Football, or French language to German. Nor like a man who tries carrots and beans and decides he prefers the former. Sexual orientation is a powerful force in life and drives outlook and behaviour in pretty significant ways. It seems pretty “built-in” (even if by way of a flaw in our physical selves.)

I have no idea why people experience SSA and no OSA, when the reverse “makes more sense”. But, if one day, a biological basis for sexual orientation were to be identified, and a test could answer the question - do you experience predominately SSA - would that cause you to review your Red sentence?

Let me put it this way. All persons are objectively either male or female. Perhaps that is what Zoltan means by saying that we are all physically heterosexual: simply the fact is that our bodies, whether we are male or female, are objectively ordered to union with the opposite sex.

To the extent that modern society obsesses over sexual preferences, it is obsessing over what seems to be a social construct. (See “Against Heterosexuality,” an article in First Things magazine.) We know that we are male or female. “Orientation” is somewhat more fluid.

I can say that most of us have disordered desires of one kind or another, whether of a sexual or other nature. No one escapes from disordered desire. It is, I think, a mistake to make such desires equal to one’s human identity.

 

[Rau]

Let me put it this way. All persons are objectively either male or female.

Essentially true. I gather there are some very rare, very obscure cases where sex is difficult to conclude, but I don’t know enough to comment., and I agree not relevant to this discussion.

Perhaps that is what Zoltan means by saying that we are all physically heterosexual: simply the fact is that our bodies, whether we are male or female, are objectively ordered to union with the opposite sex.

Agreed in general, though for precision’s sake, it is our “observable” bodies, that are so ordered. Others assert there are brain differences, etc. I don’t rule that out.

To the extent that modern society obsesses over sexual preferences, it is obsessing over what seems to be a social construct. (See “Against Heterosexuality,” an article in First Things magazine.)

I agree that the “homosexual lifestyle” and the **advocacy and defence of it **is looking very cultural. Some elements of the article appear quite insulting eg. the suggestion that what was once a ‘sodomite’ is now a ‘homosexual’. Remarks such as this seem to deny that which came before the choice to commit sodomy (I guess by homosexual the author means one who equates the inclination with a right to the lifestyle and behaviours). Such a remark seems also to overlook that some people live with the inclination and choose to remain chaste.

There is a deal of semantics in the article, though I agree the semantics can be important. Eg. I find it much preferable for someone to say “I experience only SSA, and no OSA”, than “I am a homosexual”, though they **may ** mean the same thing (to the speaker, or others). And it’s clear why the advocates for the homosexual lifestyles, behaviours and rights much prefer the latter expression.

We know that we are male or female. “Orientation” is somewhat more fluid.

“Somewhat” is probably fair. We can observe (“know”) a person’s sex from pre-birth, whereas sexual orientation emerges. And orientation seems also to be other than purely binary.

I can say that most of us have disordered desires of one kind or another, whether of a sexual or other nature. No one escapes from disordered desire. It is, I think, a mistake to make such desires equal to one’s human identity.

Certainly true.

 

[MacQ]

What’s wrong with imposing a little morality?

Ask the women living under Sharia law…