Non-religious Argument Against Gay Marriage?

[Dale_M]

I addressed this previously. First, there is no way to assess infertility without measures that are either grossly intrusive, inherently arbitrary and subjective, or both.

Yes, you did mention this. However, if a woman has no uterus (via a hysterectomy), then pregnancy is impossible. And, of course, most women in developed countries live to the age of menopause, after which they are infertile.

And second, per the Pro 8 proponents’ brief, “even infertile marriages between men and women further the procreative purposes of marriage by decreasing the likelihood that the fertile partner will produce children out of wedlock and by strengthening legal and social norms that seek to channel and confine sexual relationships between men and women to marriage.”

There are two different arguments there. The first is that infertile marriages are necessary to prevent promiscuity. The other is that infertile heterosexual marriages are good because they reinforce heterosexual marriage.

The first argument could be used in favor of homosexual marriage. The second argument could also be used in favor of homosexual marriage (simply replace the word “heterosexual” with “homosexual”.)

If a homosexual wishes to have a child by means of a third party, there is simply no reason to recognize the involvement of his partner.

No reason other than that both persons will be raising the child. You might as well argue that a divorced person with kids, who has gotten sterilized, should not marry a person without kids.

My wife gets my health insurance because there is a reasonable expectation that she will bear my child. My girlfriend doesn’t, even if she is helping to raise my child by another woman. Why do you think this is?

I don’t know. If two adults have committed to raising a child together, I think that makes them a family and that they deserve the financial benefits of a family.

What in the world business has the state issuing permission slips saying “you’re committed and in love,” since this is evidently the purpose to which you would reduce the legal institution of marriage?

I think the psychological and medical benefits of being bonded with another person for a lifetime is well known. Being in a long term relationship is healthy. And it is stabilizing, promoting both persons to put down roots, and limiting impulsive behavior.

Marriage as a social/religious institution serves purposes beyond that of the legal institution.

I’m open to that argument. And I think I agree with it. But I don’t see any secular reason why same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Marriage as a social/religious institution serves purposes beyond that of the legal institution.

If homosexuals are starved for “recognition of their union,” they are perfectly free to hold a little ceremony with an Episcopalian minister or some such. They can exchange vows and wedding bands, they can even call their ceremony a “marriage” and no one will try to stop them. There is simply no legally compelling basis to recognize it as such.

Yes, this is entirely it. If it became a legal precedent to create or expand an institution for the purpose of psychological and social inclusion for various interest groups, the structure of society, and of laws themselves, would disintegrate. The purpose of laws and institutional structures should not be, from a civil perspective, to create or repair self-esteem or group esteem. I’m sure (I’ve met them) there are older people who never finished high school and would love to enroll in their local high school. But it would change the character of the high school to include, in the classroom day, students from age 8 to 80. The secondary years serve a specific purpose, the purpose of which is not just broadly either education or self-esteem, but a learning experience particular to adolescents and not to young genius children or to the elderly. So the 8 year old and the 80 year old do not get to say “me-too” to a particular institution, they get to fulfill their right to education in other venues. (When the 8-year-old is at least 10, he gets to add Independent Study to his general education, but that’s off-topic. The 80-year-old can get a GED or fulfill requirements and desires through many other educational opportunities.)

The right in founding documents to free association between persons mutually willing to associate (the right to love, including the right to define privately one’s relationship) does not extend that right to force structural change because of the subjective view that one is being “shut-out.” Adults and children often have non-sexual significant others in their loves who are surrogate parents; sometimes they’ve had these from childhood: trusted others who have nurtured their lives, informally “adopted” them, “raised” them alongside of their primary parents, become confidants and even close family insiders. That’s all well and good (and I have situations like this in my own personal life), but that affords those surrogates absolutely no legal rights whatsoever in terms of parenting. The surrogate may even be closer, in the eyes of that person and his or her favored younger friend, than the parents, but feelings do not make law.

There would be no end to claims by interest groups if emotion rather than function, started driving laws. That turns the state into an arm of personal preference. As I said on another thread, gay couples have been calling themselves “married” for years, even decades – long before this issue became a hot public issue. The State is not interested in policing private nomenclature, but neither should it be in the business of fabricating or destroying nomenclature without legal basis, when that nomenclature impacts the foundations of society. It is not sexuality per se that is the foundation of society; it is the social unit growing out of biology, which organizes the development of the youngest members, so that orderly, recognizable social structures can continue to function, and integrate into the civil structures.

 

[sw85]

Yes, you did mention this. However, if a woman has no uterus (via a hysterectomy), then pregnancy is impossible. And, of course, most women in developed countries live to the age of menopause, after which they are infertile.

Let me rephrase. There is no way for a government official (who would be approving or denying the issuance of marriage licenses) to certify “infertility” in a way that is not either subjective and arbitrary, grossly intrusive, or both. Such inquiries would invariably run afoul of privacy protections. Which is precisely the reason we use age as a proxy for maturity when deciding when people are legally permitted to consume alcohol.

There are two different arguments there. The first is that infertile marriages are necessary to prevent promiscuity. The other is that infertile heterosexual marriages are good because they reinforce heterosexual marriage.

The first argument could be used in favor of homosexual marriage. The second argument could also be used in favor of homosexual marriage (simply replace the word “heterosexual” with “homosexual”.)

Homosexual promiscuity is wholly immaterial to the welfare of the body politic since it is incapable of producing children out of wedlock. Heterosexual promiscuity, by contrast, is not – and it frequently does produce such children.

As for the second argument, it hinges on the validity of the first. There is no reason to establish a culture of same-sex marriage because there is no need to have it in the first place.

No reason other than that both persons will be raising the child. You might as well argue that a divorced person with kids, who has gotten sterilized, should not marry a person without kids.

Not being married in no way impinges on the third party’s ability to help raise another person’s child. I wouldn’t need to marry my live-in nanny, would I?

I don’t know. If two adults have committed to raising a child together, I think that makes them a family and that they deserve the financial benefits of a family.

It is because my wife’s health is immediately necessary for her to discharge her marital obligations to me in the form of bearing and raising my children. Merely helping to raise a child is not enough – or else nannies and day care providers would be eligible for coverage under my health insurance, as well.

There is simply no compelling reason to extend a benefit like health insurance to someone in the absence of the possibility of procreative potential. It would be like the governing declaring that health insurance companies must also cover my mailman.

I think the psychological and medical benefits of being bonded with another person for a lifetime is well known. Being in a long term relationship is healthy. And it is stabilizing, promoting both persons to put down roots, and limiting impulsive behavior.

Promoting healthy relationships in itself is hardly a matter of public interest – especially so far as the strictly rational basis for promulgating laws is concerned. It is only when those relationships are capable of producing children, the care and disposition of whom is a matter of public interest, that the state takes a legitimate interest.

I’m open to that argument. And I think I agree with it. But I don’t see any secular reason why same-sex couples should be excluded from marriage.

Well, it is a simple matter of recognizing that I can have a religious marriage apart from a legal marriage. I am not legally married until I go to the courthouse and get a valid marriage license, even if I’ve already had a religious ceremony. But conversely, I am not married in the eyes of God until I hold the appropriate ceremony, even if I’ve already received a marriage license from the state. They are separate institutions serving separate (although partially overlapping) purposes.

This is precisely where so many gay marriage advocates go wrong. Recognizing love, commitment, and unity is a function solely of marriage as a cultural/religious institution; it is no way relevant to the operation of the interests of the state, which promulgates marriage solely as a means of governing the obligations and responsibilities attendant on procreation, and which has no reason whatsoever to legislate on the basis of the fickle human heart.

 

[irishpatrick]

There are obviously many non-religious reasons. With that in mind, I have a question:

If it is okay to redefine marriage to be any two people, than why can’t marriage be defined to any arrangement (two men and two women, etc.)?

 

[Suudy]

Well before “defending” any beliefs, I would submit that anyone who wants to change the status quo carrys the obligation to show why it should change; the status quo should not be guilty unless proven innocent. So other than gays wanting to have this right as arbitrary choice, what are the reasons?

Peter Kreeft cites a great Chesterton quote in his talk on homosexuality.

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’ "

 

[manualman]

Hasn’t anyone on the pro-gay marriage side ever wondered why GOVERNMENT is involved in marriage in the first place? Why does government go beyond the mere durable power of attorney concept in the first place?

Is it perhaps that someone once upon a time actually recognized that society itself depends on the stability of the family and that it is in the best interest of society to foster that building block, reinforce it and bestow up it a certain honor?

Perhaps someone recognized that even if 100% of GDP were spent on social services, no government institution could ever substitute for the value of a good family? (Go visit any inner city if you doubt me and see what society looks like when a majority of homes are broken).

When marriage (secular governmental version) is defined as the union of a man and woman and certain benefits are accrued to that union, society as a whole benefits because that union USUALLY is where children come from and a strong, healthy marriage generally means healthy, well adjusted kids that grow up to be healthy, positive adults.

When marriage is redefined as “being with someone that I love and that makes me feel special” there is, indeed, no reason to deny it to people whose relationship is, by its very nature, sterile and provides to over-arching benefit to society. This redefinition occured subtly when society bought the contraceptive lie. It’s an inevitable outcome of the contraceptive view of marriage in which children are merely an irrelevant and optional part of marriage.

This is not contrary to Church teaching because we are not TALKING about marriage in the catholic sense. Just the secular sense, which is the only purview of government.

 

[Dale_M]

Let me rephrase. There is no way for a government official (who would be approving or denying the issuance of marriage licenses) to certify “infertility” in a way that is not either subjective and arbitrary, grossly intrusive, or both.

I am glad we agree that subjective and arbitrary government regulation is a bad thing. However, the absence of children after, say, 10 years, would be evidence of either infertility or an unwillingness/unreadiness to attempt to have children. In which case, should such couples have their marriage dissolved?

Should a woman who has had a hysterectomy, and thus has no uterus, be forbidden by law to get married because she can not become pregnant? Should a woman who is past the age of menopause be banned from getting married? These issues would simply require a yes/no check box on the application form, or at most a doctor’s letter. Heck, when I got married (25 years ago) state law required a doctor perform a syphilis test and then mail in a signed statement that each of us was disease free. I’m not sure that was much less intrusive.

But as I mentioned earlier, I think the procreation requirement for marriage is misguided.

Homosexual promiscuity is wholly immaterial to the welfare of the body politic since it is incapable of producing children out of wedlock.

Oh, I disagree with that. Promiscuity, gay or straight, is largely responsible for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Curbing promiscuity very much is a public health interest.

Heterosexual promiscuity, by contrast, is not – and it frequently does produce such children.

I think the children being produced out of wedlock are by couples who have no intention to get married. I am not sure there is any evidence that the existence of married heterosexual couples who do not have children decreases the rate of unwed childbirth.

It is because my wife’s health is immediately necessary for her to discharge her marital obligations to me in the form of bearing and raising my children. Merely helping to raise a child is not enough – or else nannies and day care providers would be eligible for coverage under my health insurance, as well.

I don’t think that the financial and legal benefits of marriage depend on being currently engaged in childrearing. If it did, then marriages would be dissolved once fertility was no longer possible for a couple. (see my first argument)

Your wife is covered by your health insurance, not because she became pregnant or the two of you had pre-existing children. She is covered because the two of you are a family, and your mutual welfare depend on one another. Marriage is a good and healthy thing for a committed couple, gay or straight.

This is precisely where so many gay marriage advocates go wrong. Recognizing love, commitment, and unity is a function solely of marriage as a cultural/religious institution; it is no way relevant to the operation of the interests of the state

I agree that religious marriage is separate from the legal and financial benefits of civil marriage. However, you are very wrong if you think gays and lesbians are seeking marriage primarily for recognizing love and commitment. They can get religious denominations to do this already.

The push for gay marriage has to do with demanding equal financial and legal benefits with those given to straight couples.

…which promulgates marriage solely as a means of governing the obligations and responsibilities attendant on procreation, and which has no reason whatsoever to legislate on the basis of the fickle human heart.

As I have pointed out, marriage (at least in the US) is not contingent on procreation. It never has been. If you want to make procreation a requirement of marriage (which I think would be hotly fought by many heterosexual couples), it will require organizing on a state and national level to change the marriage laws… much as is being done currently regarding same-sex marriage.

 

[sw85]

I am glad we agree that subjective and arbitrary government regulation is a bad thing. However, the absence of children after, say, 10 years, would be evidence of either infertility or an unwillingness/unreadiness to attempt to have children. In which case, should such couples have their marriage dissolved?

You yourself argue below that marriage is not contingent on procreation. I agree. It exists to serve that purpose, in much way that engineering degrees exist to permit you to practice engineering. But it hardly obligates me to practice engineering, any more than getting married obligates me to have children.

Of course I cannot imagine why you would want to get such a degree if you have no intention to practice engineering. But as a college official I would hardly be inclined to ask. That’s simply not my business.

Should a woman who has had a hysterectomy, and thus has no uterus, be forbidden by law to get married because she can not become pregnant? Should a woman who is past the age of menopause be banned from getting married? These issues would simply require a yes/no check box on the application form, or at most a doctor’s letter. Heck, when I got married (25 years ago) state law required a doctor perform a syphilis test and then mail in a signed statement that each of us was disease free. I’m not sure that was much less intrusive.

The mere inquiry is itself intrusive.

I have no idea where you got married and why you were required to submit to such a test. Clearly that is not the standard nowadays. And clearly you would agree that the absence of such a standard is a good thing.

Oh, I disagree with that. Promiscuity, gay or straight, is largely responsible for the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Curbing promiscuity very much is a public health interest.

Hardly one that requires virtually any of the benefits attendant on marriage, hm?

I think the children being produced out of wedlock are by couples who have no intention to get married. I am not sure there is any evidence that the existence of married heterosexual couples who do not have children decreases the rate of unwed childbirth.

Whether the institution is effective in this capacity is immaterial. That is the purpose it is intended to serve.

Now, if you think the institution is ineffective as such, you ought to be arguing for its abolition. Arbitrarily rewriting it to include more people it was never intended to include, so that it can fail to solve their problems as well, would be an exercise in futility.

I don’t think that the financial and legal benefits of marriage depend on being currently engaged in childrearing. If it did, then marriages would be dissolved once fertility was no longer possible for a couple. (see my first argument)

Your wife is covered by your health insurance, not because she became pregnant or the two of you had pre-existing children. She is covered because the two of you are a family, and your mutual welfare depend on one another. Marriage is a good and healthy thing for a committed couple, gay or straight.

No. She is covered by my health insurance because there is a reasonable expectation that she will have my children, and that her good health is necessary for her to do so. And that reasonable expectation arrives from the fact that procreation is the purpose which marriage was intended to serve.

There are many members of my family who are not covered under my health insurance (my brother, my niece, etc.). Clearly being family is not a sufficiently stringent requirement to justify intrusive requirements that spouses and children be covered under my health insurance.

The simple response is that family in itself is irrelevant to the interests of the state – except insofar as family relates to one of its chief duties: the care and disposition of children.

I agree that religious marriage is separate from the legal and financial benefits of civil marriage. However, you are very wrong if you think gays and lesbians are seeking marriage primarily for recognizing love and commitment. They can get religious denominations to do this already.

The push for gay marriage has to do with demanding equal financial and legal benefits with those given to straight couples.

Benefits to which they are not entitled because their sexual behavior is not a matter of public interest.

They are perfectly able to capture those benefits by marrying a person of the opposite sex. In that sense their marital rights are exactly identical to mine.

 

[kenofken]

There are NO arguments against gay marriage which are not religious in nature, except for personal hatred or distaste of gays. “Natural law” is just a sophomoric dodge. It’s a back-handed way of asserting that one’s own religion is so self-evident that it’s just the way of the universe and everybody knows, or should know it.

If you have a religious objection to something, don’t try to disguise it, it simply insults peoples intelligence. Creationists and advocates of putting the 10 Commandments up everywhere have tried to disguise their intentions as merely neutral science or history interests, but it’s obvious to a 5-year old who’s pulling the strings. Natural law falls short on other counts as well. If we had some consensus that the only legitimate purpose of marriage was reproduction, than many many hetero couples would have to be denied marriage based on old age, infertility, or at a bare minimum, the millions who choose to practice artificial birth control or have themselves sterilized at a young age.

There are of course assertions that gay people and couples are somehow inherently dysfunctional, but none which have been made or substantiated by properly credentialed experts using scientific standards which would pass muster in any modern branch of science or medicine.

Barring any such objective data, the question becomes whether we, as a society, are willing to grant specific sectarian religious interests a special veto over civil law, as is done in Saudi Arabia or in Israel with the Haredim in Israel. My guess is that our society is increasingly less interested in doing so, but there’s a lot to sort out. One’s religious beliefs are, of course, an ironclad argument as to whether a particular church must perform religious marriages for anyone.

 

[sw85]

There are NO arguments against gay marriage which are not religious in nature, except for personal hatred or distaste of gays.

That you are ignorant of them does not mean they don’t exist.

I direct you to my arguments above. FWIW, I’m a deist - not a Catholic.

 

[timotheos]

There are NO arguments against gay marriage which are not religious in nature, except for personal hatred or distaste of gays.

I disagree. But it will take a few decades to prove it. You see, even if many believe gays should be able to marry, how many of them honestly are glad they grew up with Mom and Dad? And let’s say if you grew up with Dad1 and Dad2, or Mom1 and Mom2, do you really believe you would be totally psychologically fine?

Pope Benedict XVI said, “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 not a religious statement, it is based on observation of what is healthy for people.

So when these kids grow up, they will see that the state systematically allowed their gay parent’s unnatural association. Those who have suffered psychologic harm, having been robbed of a normal childhood and normal family, may well have grounds to sue the state.

I know I would. I would be furious at the arrogance of a government that would have presumed to know what was OK for me as a child, especially when nature, popular opinion, common sense and popular vote at the time said otherwise. I would get the best lawyer I could find and do my darndest to put together a case accusing the state of putting me, and others like me, deliberately in harms way.

No religious argument necessary.

 

[Dale_M]

You yourself argue below that marriage is not contingent on procreation. I agree. It exists to serve that purpose, in much way that engineering degrees exist to permit you to practice engineering. But it hardly obligates me to practice engineering, any more than getting married obligates me to have children.

Hmm… wouldn’t it make more sense to say that getting married (or getting a marriage license) enables you live as a married couple - such a couple practices the married life. Being married might entail many things, such as living together in the same household or procreating. However, procreation is not a requirement of practicing the married life. Nor is marriage a requirement of procreation. Marriage and procreation are independent of one another.

I have no idea where you got married and why you were required to submit to such a test. Clearly that is not the standard nowadays.

I married in the state of Illinois during the 1980s. Currently, the District of Columbia, Mississippi, Montana, and New York require some kind of medical test prior to getting a marriage license.
family.findlaw.com/marriage/marriage-laws/marriage-blood-test.html

And clearly you would agree that the absence of such a standard is a good thing.

I think such tests are medically unnecessary. However, I am not the person saying that fertility is an essential component of marriage.

Whether the institution is effective in this capacity is immaterial. That is the purpose it is intended to serve.

The purpose of infertile marriages is to promote heterosexual marriages among the fertile? Although I don’t doubt you believe that, are you basing this claim upon what actual marriage laws say? Or statement of intent by the legislators? And if so, could you cite some of them?

Now, if you think the institution is ineffective as such, you ought to be arguing for its abolition.

That is quite a jump. I merely pointed out that the existence of marriage is not a cure-all for out of wedlock childbirths. That doesn’t mean that marriage is a bad thing. I think there are many advantages of marriage: financial, legal, psychological, medical.

Arbitrarily rewriting it to include more people it was never intended to include, so that it can fail to solve their problems as well, would be an exercise in futility.

Asking for equal protection under the law is hardly “arbitrarily rewriting” a law. If you seriously want to contend that marriage was never meant to include homosexuals, I again would ask for a citation showing an actual law stating that or a statement indicating legislative intent.

No. She is covered by my health insurance because there is a reasonable expectation that she will have my children, and that her good health is necessary for her to do so. And that reasonable expectation arrives from the fact that procreation is the purpose which marriage was intended to serve.

So if a woman was unable to become pregnant, would you say she shouldn’t qualify for spousal medical insurance.

The simple response is that family in itself is irrelevant to the interests of the state – except insofar as family relates to one of its chief duties: the care and disposition of children.

Its an interesting philosophy. But of course, many would disagree with you. If you think your viewpoint is part of actual laws…well, please list them.

They are perfectly able to capture those benefits by marrying a person of the opposite sex. In that sense their marital rights are exactly identical to mine.

This is much the same as saying that everyone has a right to be Muslim, so its okay to withhold legal and financial benefits from non-Muslims. Although that is public policy in some countries, in the US it would be considered unconstitutional. Similarly, withholding the financial and legal benefits of marriage from gays, but granting them to straights, will likely be held to be unconstitutional.

 

[kenofken]

I disagree. But it will take a few decades to prove it. You see, even if many believe gays should be able to marry, how many of them honestly are glad they grew up with Mom and Dad? And let’s say if you grew up with Dad1 and Dad2, or Mom1 and Mom2, do you really believe you would be totally psychologically fine?

Pope Benedict XVI said, “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 not a religious statement, it is based on observation of what is healthy for people.

So when these kids grow up, they will see that the state systematically allowed their gay parent’s unnatural association. Those who have suffered psychologic harm, having been robbed of a normal childhood and normal family, may well have grounds to sue the state.

I know I would. I would be furious at the arrogance of a government that would have presumed to know what was OK for me as a child, especially when nature, popular opinion, common sense and popular vote at the time said otherwise. I would get the best lawyer I could find and do my darndest to put together a case accusing the state of putting me, and others like me, deliberately in harms way.

No religious argument necessary.

If no religious argument is necessary, why is your entire argument contingent on the opinion of a religious figure? I would have been quite happy to have grown up with two parents of any persuasion who were in a happy relationship together. As it turns out, nobody grows up in a totally ideal environment, but if you have parents comitted to doing their very best for you and hit that goal even a slim majority of the time, you’re doing better than most in this world.

If we were to base public policy and marriage law on what is truly known to do “violence to children”, we would not allow any to be conceived or raised in extreme poverty, yet we do all the time. With no disrespect to his office, the Pope’s statement is wholly and only a religious statement. The man has zero credentials as a developmental psychologist or a parent. Nor, to my knowledge, has he ever cited the consensus of any mainstream scientific community in forming that opinion.

If we are to set the bar for what constitutes “child abuse” simply on the mere fact of having two same gender parents, then virtually all children have cause for legal action against the state. I should be able to sue because I didn’t have a legacy admission to an Ivy League school and a trust fund. (It has complicated the path to my "full human development).

 

[ThomasToo]

Marriage exists to attach society’s legal imprimatur to unions which are capable of bringing forth children, the care and disposition of whom is a matter of public interest.

Gay couples are incapable of procreation, and so there behavior is hardly a matter of public interest worthy of recognition or protection.

This, of course, is why we also prohibit men who have had vasectomies and women who have had hysterectomies from the legal protections of civil marriage.

 

[ThomasToo]

I disagree. But it will take a few decades to prove it. You see, even if many believe gays should be able to marry, how many of them honestly are glad they grew up with Mom and Dad? And let’s say if you grew up with Dad1 and Dad2, or Mom1 and Mom2, do you really believe you would be totally psychologically fine?

Pope Benedict XVI said, “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 not a religious statement, it is based on observation of what is healthy for people.

The decision in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf) shows the findings of fact that
#69:

The factors that affect whether a child is well-adjusted are: (1) the quality of a child’s relationship with his or her parents; (2) the quality of the relationship between a child’s parents or significant adults in the child’s life; and (3) the availability of economic and social resources.

#70:

The gender of a child’s parent is not a factor in a child’s adjustment. The sexual orientation of an individual does not determine whether that individual can be a good parent. Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.

#71:

Children do not need to be raised by a male parent and a female parent to be well-adjusted, and having both a male and a female parent does not increase the likelihood that a child will be well-adjusted.

While that may be an estimation of what is healthy for people it’s not a good one and, frankly, the Pope isn’t really an authority–nor an expert–in the field of developmental psychology.

 

[inocente]

Other than a piece of paper, please demonstrate what fundamental difference there is between a gay couple who enjoy all the same work/visitation/insurance/financial benefits without being married, and a couple who is married. It doesn’t change anything, so why is there such an effort to seek this non-difference if it is not to lend credibility to a relationship that has never been recognized in all of history as legitimate? What changed that now makes it suddenly legitimate only by force of a legal decree?

Surely one of the fundamental things about any marriage ceremony is being able to stand in front of your families, friends and anyone else to declare your love for and commitment to each other. Atheists can’t do that as a sacrament before God, but as the OP is about a non-religious argument, why allow atheists a civil union but not homosexuals?

Also, why promote promiscuity by barring it?

If I can’t deny anyone such as a gay couple, because it is a RIGHT, then it’s also a right to have a kangaroo for a spouse and to whom will you appeal to deny that that cannot be appealed to in the matter of gay marriage?

If we civilly recognize the union of Catholics, Jews, atheists, Wikkas, etc., where’s your slippery slope? I mean, how many people demonstrate for the right to marry kangaroos, how would a chiwawa return the vows, and how many others would find the whole idea ridiculous and icky?

 

[inocente]

Pope Benedict XVI said, “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 not a religious statement, it is based on observation of what is healthy for people.

Compared to being brought up by a single parent after a vicious divorce? (The statement is part of a document approved by Pope John Paul II for which Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect, not necessarily author.)

So when these kids grow up, they will see that the state systematically allowed their gay parent’s unnatural association. Those who have suffered psychologic harm, having been robbed of a normal childhood and normal family, may well have grounds to sue the state.

Not unless the rest of us also get the right to sue the state for recognizing the marriage of our imperfect, untrained parents.

 

[timotheos]

Compared to being brought up by a single parent after a vicious divorce? (The statement is part of a document approved by Pope John Paul II for which Cardinal Ratzinger was Prefect, not necessarily author.)

Not unless the rest of us also get the right to sue the state for recognizing the marriage of our imperfect, untrained parents.

Oh, everyone is well aware of the failings in marriage, and the damage that is done by imperfect parents. But the child instinctively knows what the ideal is - father and mother in a loving (in the Christian sense) relationship and providing support for family. And most would understand that the duty of the state is not to guarantee children a happy home, but to recognize the law of nature and pass laws harmonious with them. The state can recognize “heterosexual marriage” because it pre-exists as a natural law. But for the state to declare “homosexual marriage” as equivalent to heterosexual requires a declaration outside of nature. If it turns out that the state has erred in doing so (the Church has a pretty good track record of predicting problems resulting from amoral legislation), wouldn’t it be negligent and responsible for its actions?

PS. You are right, sorry about the Cardinal Ratzinger inaccuracy; I did kinda know this but took an imprudent shortcut.

 

[inocente]

But the child instinctively knows what the ideal is - father and mother in a loving (in the Christian sense) relationship and providing support for family.

The issue is that society allows a huge degree of dysfunction in families before intervening. Two loving homosexual parents in a stable relationship may or may not be ideal but is a step up for some adopted kids.

The state can recognize “heterosexual marriage” because it pre-exists as a natural law. But for the state to declare “homosexual marriage” as equivalent to heterosexual requires a declaration outside of nature.

While it sounds obvious that homosexuality is unnatural it turns out to be really hard to prove (I’ve been on a thread that tried to do it, which has now gone over 1350 posts!).

Apart from medical and scientific evidence indicating that it may be natural after all, most systems of ethics, including some versions of natural law, don’t conclude that it is wrong in principle. I’ve only found one system that does - the (Aquinas) version of natural law that includes procreation in its catalog of goods. It turns out to be almost impossible to argue without scripture, and even then the scripture can be interpreted in different ways.

It’s a really frustrating piece of philosophy.

If it turns out that the state has erred in doing so (the Church has a pretty good track record of predicting problems resulting from amoral legislation), wouldn’t it be negligent and responsible for its actions?

A number of countries have legalized homosexual marriage, including my own and Canada. They did so after a lot of heart searching and legal argument, so I’d say it would be all but impossible to make a case for negligence by the state.

 

[colmcille1]

The thread that inocente referred to contains irrefutable arguments on the unnatural state of homosexuality. One of the reasons for the twelve-mile long length of that thread is because it was constantly assailed by trolls. Some of us (yours truly included) fell for their traps but we soon got wise, thank God! (And one of the questions that such trolling throws up is: are they really trying to find or rediscover their Faith?)
Btw, if you have the time and energy to follow the soundness of the True believers arguments in said thread, you will logically see how this current thread is ultimately a mere sideshow.
Not that I’m against sideshows!
God Bless,
Colmcille1.