Is calling gay marriage unnatural a good argument?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Trying2overcome
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Latinitas said:
No doubt. But, conceptually, the procreative aspect is the principal one.
Click to expand...
The important point Jim makes is that all the fruits of the sexual relationship (of marriage) are bound together. We often here SSM proponents seek to claim that because the sexual act serves multiple ends, those ends can be pursued in a manner that divides the meanings. Thus, it is argued, there is nothing unusual about two men engaging in a sexual relationship as an element of their closeness and affection. This idea ignores the complete nature of the sexual act. It is not some unremarkable accident that the feelings closeness and affection promoted in a sexual relationship are bound up with the procreative nature of the act.
 
Latinitas said:
The one thing I want to emphasize here, and in this I do share with the traditionalists their concern for the way many modern Catholics think about marriage, is that, the two goods, union and procreation, are not equal in importance. The primary purpose of marriage is procreation; union is secondary and subordinate to it. That isn’t to say it’s not important - it certainly is. But the procreative aspect is the primary purpose of marriage. Cf. Holy Office Decree of 1944.

I know you’re not promoting anything contrary to the teaching of the Church, but I just want to emphasize this.

Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas
Click to expand...
there is no doubt that the procreative process is primary because of God’s command be fruitful and multiply, but I fear the way you are phrasing this argument makes it sound like, the unitive aspect can be done away with. This is far from the truth.

While it is true the unitive aspect is still essential and key to marriage. What kind of marriage doesn’t involve personal complementarity? What indissoluble marriage doesn’t involve the union of spouses. Sexual intercourse acts as the most intimate unitive aspect of marriage, but maybe as some of the married people can speak to, everything in the marriage is tied up in the marital embrace, the bedroom won’t magically work if in every other aspect of marriage the husband and wife are at their throats?

to put it simple. While procreative maybe the more important aspect of marriage, without a strong union between spouses, the procreative aspect of marriage will suffer, or other very essential elements of marriage will suffer.

I’ll put it this way, love transcends all things in marriage, if spouses don’t love each other, it doesn’t matter how many children they have their marriage will suffer and likely fall apart.

but this is slightly off topic. Let’s get back to the same sex marriage debate.
 
JimG said:
The difference is not that an opposite sex couple can procreate. The difference is that a man and a woman can have sex. A man and a woman can have marital sex. A same sex couple can never have marital sex. They may do other things, but it is not conjugal sex and can never be. The union can never be marriage because it can never be conjugal–regardless of procreation or fertility.

I do agree with you that contraception led directly to same sex marriage, since it essentially divorced children from marriage. Those who supported contraception supported its end result–same sex marriage.
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
Rau said:
The important point Jim makes is that all the fruits of the sexual relationship (of marriage) are bound together. We often here SSM proponents seek to claim that because the sexual act serves multiple ends, those ends can be pursued in a manner that divides the meanings. Thus, it is argued, there is nothing unusual about two men engaging in a sexual relationship as an element of their closeness and affection. This idea ignores the complete nature of the sexual act. It is not some unremarkable accident that the feelings closeness and affection promoted in a sexual relationship are bound up with the procreative nature of the act.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Not only that. Proponents of SS M constantly bring.up then why infertile.people.can get married or why people who are 50 or 60 can get married or why we don’t demand elders to stop being married.
 
JimG said:
The difference is not that an opposite sex couple can procreate. The difference is that a man and a woman can have sex…A same sex couple can never have marital sex. They may do other things, but it is not conjugal sex and can never be. The union can never be marriage because it can never be conjugal–regardless of procreation or fertility.
Click to expand...
What exactly does all this mean? You need to define your terms. For example, what does “have sex” mean? Also, according to Merriam-Webster, “conjugal” = “relating to marriage or to a married couple” and “marital” means “of or relating to marriage.”

So basically, you said: “A same sex couple can never have sex of or relating to marriage. They may do other things, but it is not sex relating to marriage or to a married couple and can never be. The union can never be marriage because it can never be relating to marriage or to a married couple regardless of procreation or fertility.”

It seems like a rather circular argument.
 
Thorolfr said:
…what does “have sex” mean?
Click to expand...
Like marriage, this appears to be another term for which a redefinition is demanded by those seeking to justify, demand and sustain certain choices. The meaning of “conjugal” is of course connected with the meaning of marriage - distort one and you distort the other.

Given Jim’s context - ie. “what distinguishes the joining of a man and a woman from another kind of sexual relationship” - I would have thought his meaning quite clear.
 
Thorolfr said:
What exactly does all this mean? You need to define your terms. For example, what does “have sex” mean? Also, according to Merriam-Webster, “conjugal” = “relating to marriage or to a married couple” and “marital” means “of or relating to marriage.”

So basically, you said: “A same sex couple can never have sex of or relating to marriage. They may do other things, but it is not sex relating to marriage or to a married couple and can never be. The union can never be marriage because it can never be relating to marriage or to a married couple regardless of procreation or fertility.”

It seems like a rather circular argument.
Click to expand...
It means the male and female parts are complementary and they fit together in a naturally complementary way. Procreation may or may not result. It is conjugal relations. It is only possible between a man and a woman neither of whom is impotent. It is never possible between persons of the same sex.
 
Well, the sky has yet to fall. More Americans in love can enter into civil marriage. No ones demanding any church to change their doctrine.

I doubt most gay couples actually care that some random person with a particular faith doesn’t think their marriage is real. Because it doesn’t matter what they think. The government says they’re married in the eyes of the LAW, not the church, therefore they are.
 
Finite said:
Well, the sky has yet to fall. More Americans in love can enter into civil marriage. No ones demanding any church to change their doctrine.

I doubt most gay couples actually care that some random person with a particular faith doesn’t think their marriage is real. Because it doesn’t matter what they think. The government says they’re married in the eyes of the LAW, not the church, therefore they are.
Click to expand...
Indeed, the government calls the relationship of 2 men or 2 women marriage. This just seems to be an abuse, a ‘prostitution’, of the word. One does not need to subscribe to any particular religion to view the situation thusly.
 
Trying2overcome said:
Hello all, long time no post! Anyways, I was wondering if calling gay marriage unnatural is a good argument. I ask because aren’t our lives filled with “unnatural” things? For instance, phones, lamps, heaters and A/C, internet, etc? If these unnatural things are okay, why isn’t gay marriage? I’m sure there is an easy anser for this, but I just can’t think of it. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Saying “it’s unnatural” is an awful argument against gay marriage. You seem to have already stated the basic reason why.
 
JimG said:
The difference is not that an opposite sex couple can procreate. The difference is that a man and a woman can have sex. A man and a woman can have marital sex. A same sex couple can never have marital sex. They may do other things, but it is not conjugal sex and can never be. The union can never be marriage because it can never be conjugal–regardless of procreation or fertility. .
Click to expand...
Sex and conjugal sex are not the same thing. Sex is a wide category in which conjugal sex is contained. Same sex couples can and do have sex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top