P
Ptero
Guest
Okay, men tend to be better socialized when they are married to a woman than when they are single or living in groups with other men.
Does anyone know the social value of homosexual couples?
Homosexual "marriage" -- secular & natural law arguments against
- Status
Does anyone know the social value of homosexual couples?
P
Poisson
Guest
One reason God instituted marriage was for pro-creation it is in that sense that the marriage of one man and one woman conforms with the natural law as established by God. If marriage between of a couple which is able to procreate is good it’s still good if those people are no longer able to procreate. It is impossible for a same-sex couple to procreate as we were designed so it is never a good thing.
God designed men to be with woman, the parts fit and were designed to work together.
K
Ken
Guest
What are the peculiarities of law that arise from the distinction of sex?
K
Ken
Guest
OK. We have benefit to each partner: the advantage to each of combining fortunes and obligations. How is that a benefit to society?
K
Ken
Guest
Does the marriage of two fifty year olds who do not adopt benefit society? If so, how?
K
Ken
Guest
OK. The claim is that men are better socialized by marrying a woman. Is that it? That’s the limit of the social benefit of two fifty year olds marrying?
K
Ken
Guest
Why is it good for two people who cannot procreate to marry? What is the benefit to society?
K
Ken
Guest
Come on, folks. You can do better than this.
You’re not coming close to demonstrating that society benefits from the marriage of two fifty year olds who neither procreate nor adopt.
You’re not coming close to demonstrating that society benefits from the marriage of two fifty year olds who neither procreate nor adopt.
P
Ptero
Guest
Yes, and the good we are speaking of is a greater good than what is good for any one or two individuals but rather that which is good for the group as a whole. A concept apparently being lost on a society whose focus is fixed on the individual.
But again, in a society which absolutely separates church from state will therefore come to associate morals only with a church and can never know what is right or wrong in moralistic terms, but only through what is deemed good for the state.
The state doesn’t have any moral foundation in this country because the founding fathers were Christians using an unstated Judeo-Christian moral premise as the basis for writing the Constitution.
The founding fathers were careful not to mention any specific Christian denomination in the Constitution, because for one they thought it wise to limit Federal power and empower the States to the specifics, and also because of the context of their world, namely, the Europe that they left behind which was not allowing them the freedom to worship outside of the Catholic church. So, this is their legacy!
P
Ptero
Guest
Seeings as how men commit most of the crimes, I would say this is a huge benefit to both the good of the state and the church! Do we need to bring out the details? Go to Fedstats if you must!
Why the need to downplay it?
M
Makerteacher
Guest
Do we disregard the simple fact that most elderly people are wiser than we younger ones are, and if an elderly man and woman --who are childless or not-- remain married, they have much to teach the younger ones?
They are also a support to one another, --physically, mentally, emotional, spiritually, financially–resulting in happier humans who are much more likely to be involved in the community as a whole. Statistics verify that elderly people who live with their spouses live longer, healthier lives, and can continue to be “productive”, – which appears to be where you are headed with this argument about “social benefits”.
But the fact is, we as human do not need to produce ANYTHING to be valuable to God. Our worth is not measured by what we give to the state, but by the very fact that we are made in His likeness and image, and therefore of inesteemable value. It matters not our age, our disability level, our developmental stage.
If we follow the “socially beneficial” route, we’ll end up on the slippery slope of eugenics. At some point, if a person rejects Godly morals, there is virtually no way to convince them that gay marriage is a “bad idea.” Instead, the goal would be to convince them that Godly morals are a GOOD idea.
Just a few random thoughts tonight…
They are also a support to one another, --physically, mentally, emotional, spiritually, financially–resulting in happier humans who are much more likely to be involved in the community as a whole. Statistics verify that elderly people who live with their spouses live longer, healthier lives, and can continue to be “productive”, – which appears to be where you are headed with this argument about “social benefits”.
But the fact is, we as human do not need to produce ANYTHING to be valuable to God. Our worth is not measured by what we give to the state, but by the very fact that we are made in His likeness and image, and therefore of inesteemable value. It matters not our age, our disability level, our developmental stage.
If we follow the “socially beneficial” route, we’ll end up on the slippery slope of eugenics. At some point, if a person rejects Godly morals, there is virtually no way to convince them that gay marriage is a “bad idea.” Instead, the goal would be to convince them that Godly morals are a GOOD idea.
Just a few random thoughts tonight…
D
davidv
Guest
Their value is in their being man and woman, made in the image and likeness of God. In the arrangement that he directed.
F
Faithful_2_Rome
Guest
From the CCC:
Paraphrased
1641:By the GRACE proper to Matrimony, a married couple help one another attain HOLINESS in their married life AND in welcoming and educating children.
Now OBVIOUSLY, DESPITE ones AGE or ability to have children, marriage is a Holy SACRAMENT…given by Chirsts GRACE. Married couples assist each other in attaining HOLINESS…that is getting to HEAVEN…the PRIMARY reason we are ALL on Earth…pilgrim exiles. Since there is NOTHING (HOLY) in the practice of homosexuality, it is therefore a FALSE (self indulgent) love that can NEVER assist one or the other members of attaining any form of holiness…ESPECIALLY in a “marriage” It disrupts the moral and natural order of things set by our Creator…if anyone has a problem with this while professing to be Catholic/Christian…they need to begin reading CCC.
Paraphrased
1641:By the GRACE proper to Matrimony, a married couple help one another attain HOLINESS in their married life AND in welcoming and educating children.
Now OBVIOUSLY, DESPITE ones AGE or ability to have children, marriage is a Holy SACRAMENT…given by Chirsts GRACE. Married couples assist each other in attaining HOLINESS…that is getting to HEAVEN…the PRIMARY reason we are ALL on Earth…pilgrim exiles. Since there is NOTHING (HOLY) in the practice of homosexuality, it is therefore a FALSE (self indulgent) love that can NEVER assist one or the other members of attaining any form of holiness…ESPECIALLY in a “marriage” It disrupts the moral and natural order of things set by our Creator…if anyone has a problem with this while professing to be Catholic/Christian…they need to begin reading CCC.
M
martino
Guest
Ken, let me try to answer this question of yours:
Ken:
God created everything with a certain purpose and order. None of us individually are perfectly pure and so we all live with a degree of disorder, but the state is only interested in rewarding behavior that facilitates this order. Nobody benefits from “disorderly” behavior and the state would not want to encourage it. Any time a man and woman marry they reflect the order with which they were created. An alcoholic is discouraged from drinking alcohol because alcoholism is a disorder, and disorderly behavior is destructive not only for the individual but for everyone around them. So in this case the state’s interest is to provide help for the alcoholic so that they may refrain from certain behavior. I have never heard of a single instance when an alcoholic was encouraged to drink themselves into oblivion, whether or not he was born with this disease.
Everything that is “good” is geared towards order. It is obvious (to most of us) that men and women were created with a certain compatibility, so that their union is in order with the laws of nature. This is true for any heterosexual couple no matter what their age or how many children they raise. We live in a severly disordered society and the problem only get worse when the society embraces “disorder”.
Yes they benefit societ and I will tell you how. Any heterosexual marriage is a potential good to society and the good that they “potentially” provide is order and stability. Not every heterosexual couple is going to fullful this role, but the state recognizes that the institution that it intends to reward is geared towards a certain order.
God created everything with a certain purpose and order. None of us individually are perfectly pure and so we all live with a degree of disorder, but the state is only interested in rewarding behavior that facilitates this order. Nobody benefits from “disorderly” behavior and the state would not want to encourage it. Any time a man and woman marry they reflect the order with which they were created. An alcoholic is discouraged from drinking alcohol because alcoholism is a disorder, and disorderly behavior is destructive not only for the individual but for everyone around them. So in this case the state’s interest is to provide help for the alcoholic so that they may refrain from certain behavior. I have never heard of a single instance when an alcoholic was encouraged to drink themselves into oblivion, whether or not he was born with this disease.
Everything that is “good” is geared towards order. It is obvious (to most of us) that men and women were created with a certain compatibility, so that their union is in order with the laws of nature. This is true for any heterosexual couple no matter what their age or how many children they raise. We live in a severly disordered society and the problem only get worse when the society embraces “disorder”.
R
rschampine
Guest
Getting back to the question: what are some arguments against gay “marriage.”
First: “gay marriage” is an oxymoron, an inherent contradiction. To call a union between two individuals of the same sex “marriage” is to call squares, “triangles.” It makes no sense. So, first lets call this relationship a civil union.
Second: the word “civil” in the phrase “civil unions” implies a governing power authorizing such a union. If we truly live in a democracy, than this issure should be placed for vote. Since a majority dissagree with such unions, that should be reason enough against their instution.
Third: Just in case he requires further reasoning for the position of the majority and the err of the minority, you could ask him the following questions:
First: “gay marriage” is an oxymoron, an inherent contradiction. To call a union between two individuals of the same sex “marriage” is to call squares, “triangles.” It makes no sense. So, first lets call this relationship a civil union.
Second: the word “civil” in the phrase “civil unions” implies a governing power authorizing such a union. If we truly live in a democracy, than this issure should be placed for vote. Since a majority dissagree with such unions, that should be reason enough against their instution.
Third: Just in case he requires further reasoning for the position of the majority and the err of the minority, you could ask him the following questions:
- Are men and women, although unequivocally equal, inherently different in their physical and emotional make-up? (if he says “no,” he’s unreasonable and move on.)
- Since it takes a man and a woman to produce a child and men and women possess unique characteristics, isn’t it logical that each sex contributes unique characterists and incites to the ongoing development of the child. This in turn, develops more well-rounded, effective citizenry, which in turn provides a firm foundation on which a society is built (hardworking, responsible, compassionate, law-abiding, moral people).
- Doesn’t it make sense, then, for a controlling government to incentivize such an institution? Afterall, it **is **getting something for its investment.
- Would you pay someone to steal the tires off your car?
K
Ken
Guest
OK. “Order” is a valid point, but it is still a generality that would be strengthened by some particulars. What is it about a married couple that is more orderly than two single people?
K
Ken
Guest
**rschampine wrote:
Second: the word “civil” in the phrase “civil unions” implies a governing power authorizing such a union. If we truly live in a democracy, than this issure should be placed for vote. Since a majority dissagree with such unions, that should be reason enough against their instution.**
Most polls find those who support gay marriage, plus those who oppose gay marriage but support civil unions, exceeds 50%.
The issue is moving to the voters. I think Missouri has a vote on an amendment in early August. Other states are moving towards votes depending on the requirments of their individual constitutions.
Will you accept the results of these votes?
Second: the word “civil” in the phrase “civil unions” implies a governing power authorizing such a union. If we truly live in a democracy, than this issure should be placed for vote. Since a majority dissagree with such unions, that should be reason enough against their instution.**
Most polls find those who support gay marriage, plus those who oppose gay marriage but support civil unions, exceeds 50%.
The issue is moving to the voters. I think Missouri has a vote on an amendment in early August. Other states are moving towards votes depending on the requirments of their individual constitutions.
Will you accept the results of these votes?
G
Gratias_Grace
Guest
I want to go back to the question about arguments against gay marriages!
I think it can be a good idea to try to write down what one thinks about it and prepare for a discussion on the topic when one know that this topic will come up at work, at a fest or so on.
Some of the arguments I try to use . (This is one of the worst topics to discuss with non-catholics):
- God created us and he did not create us for sodomi.
- ”So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them”. (Genesis 1:27).
- The destruction of Sodoma and Gomora in Genesis 19 tells that God don’t like this sin
- ”If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them” (Lev 20:13). This tells us that God continues to see homosexual behaviour as evil.
- Jesus has not taken away anything that earlier has been said about the evil of homosexuality.
- It is the secular world that has made this behavior, condemned by God, to something that is a must we can’t denie people with sexual attrections to same sex.
- The catholic church thinks that we shall listen to God and not to what the ungodly wants
Fom catholic cathechism: 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
G.G.
W
wolpertinger
Guest
Are you willing to discuss the shortcomings of your argument?
R
rschampine
Guest
Ken said:
- Status