Poll: California Catholics strongly support homosexual unions

[rlg94086]

They are no more of zero value to society than rlg is of no value to society. That is merely ignorant bigotry.

That does seem to be the message: ability to breed is the foundational justification for marriage. This means that infertile couples who adopt and raise children are not in marriages of any value to society.

I see your point, but I doubt the Church would go for this.

Ah…more “logic.”

When discussing the value to society, I am referring to the relationship, not the individuals. As I’ve already explained, and once again no one has presented a valid counterpoint, the union of a man and woman can produce a child. It only takes the most basic understanding of biology to understand that. There is intrinsic value to society in encouraging stable unions between men and women because of procreation, but that doesn’t mean we should have a fertility test. All individuals have value to society, even those with disordered sexual desires. However, there is no intrinsic value of a same-sex union to society.

This is not out of ignorance or bigotry, just simple biological and anthropological fact.

 

[larkin31]

Ah…more “logic.”

When discussing the value to society, I am referring to the relationship, not the individuals. As I’ve already explained, and once again no one has presented a valid counterpoint, the union of a man and woman can produce a child. It only takes the most basic understanding of biology to understand that. There is intrinsic value to society in encouraging stable unions between men and women because of procreation, but that doesn’t mean we should have a fertility test. All individuals have value to society, even those with disordered sexual desires. However, there is no intrinsic value of a same-sex union to society.

This is not out of ignorance or bigotry, just simple biological and anthropological fact.

reducing the value of marriage to procreation only (you call non-procreative unions of “zero value”) is to reduce human marriage to the procreative status of farm animals: those that can’t drop calves in the spring are of “zero value” to the farm.

It’s an odd position for a spiritual organization to tie so much “value” into human fertility, particularly when society does not require this in any individual way whatsoever (the rate of infertility in human society is no problem to our species).

I tend to value human couples by values above biology. Yes, we are animals too. But do we have to “value” our marriage potential in such bestial terms?

 

[1234]

:yawn:

Your non-logical brethren have attempted the same argument many times. It falls flat on its face because marriage’s procreative element is not based on the individual case. It is based on the fundamental nature of the relationship. There is not, and should not be, a fertility test. Heterosexual relationships have an intrinsic value to society that homosexual relationships, by nature, can never have - regardless of the individual homosexual case.

Heterosexual relationships have one of many values, as do homosexual relationships. If marriage had a unique value in being fertile then common law relationships would be infertile, which they aren’t. Heterosexual marriage is such a debased coin these days–in my state, there are billboards trying to persuade people to marry–that I think many people, apparently including Catholics, feel that if homosexuals want to try something with a 50% failure rate, let them have at it.

 

[1234]

Ah…more “logic.”

When discussing the value to society, I am referring to the relationship, not the individuals. As I’ve already explained, and once again no one has presented a valid counterpoint, the union of a man and woman can produce a child. It only takes the most basic understanding of biology to understand that. There is intrinsic value to society in encouraging stable unions between men and women because of procreation, but that doesn’t mean we should have a fertility test. All individuals have value to society, even those with disordered sexual desires. However, there is no intrinsic value of a same-sex union to society.

This is not out of ignorance or bigotry, just simple biological and anthropological fact.

Yes, indeed, it is true only sexual intercourse can produce a child, for now, that is. But it takes a lot more to raise that child and society benefits from *any stable union *that can raise a child. Many same-sex unions do just this.

 

[rlg94086]

reducing the value of marriage to procreation only (you call non-procreative unions of “zero value”) is to reduce human marriage to the procreative status of farm animals: those that can’t drop calves in the spring are of “zero value” to the farm.

It’s an odd position for a spiritual organization to tie so much “value” into human fertility, particularly when society does not require this in any individual way whatsoever (the rate of infertility in human society is no problem to our species).

I tend to value human couples by values above biology. Yes, we are animals too. But do we have to “value” our marriage potential in such bestial terms?

Oh brother! When and where did I “reduce the value of marriage to procreation only?” It is the primary value to civilization, as a whole, but I never said it was the only value. I think it’s pretty funny to bring in the spiritual aspect though. Generally, we Catholics are told to keep religion out of it. Now that I’ve done that, you want to slam me for ignoring the spiritual aspect?

 

[1234]

Indeed, they may, in which case the California voters (and the rest of the country) may actually win the day by having Prop 8 upheld.

And, again, you are agreeing that it isn’t “settled law,” so you have backed off your earlier assertion.

No , I haven’t.** I** think it is settled law, between Loving v. Virginia and the Equal Protection Clause. However, may I re-state that I’m not on the Supreme Court, nor am I on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which is going to hear the case, if you haven’t already heard–nor am I a constitutional lawyer.

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, indeed, it is true only sexual intercourse can produce a child, for now, that is. But it takes a lot more to raise that child and society benefits from *any stable union *that can raise a child. Many same-sex unions do just this.

Ah, I see…so then you are okay with a mother marrying her son or brother? They can raise children too.

To ignore the procreative nature of marriage is to render marriage completely meaningless from a societal standpoint.

 

[rlg94086]

No , I haven’t.** I** think it is settled law, between Loving v. Virginia and the Equal Protection Clause. However, may I re-state that I’m not on the Supreme Court, nor am I on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which is going to hear the case, if you haven’t already heard–nor am I a constitutional lawyer.

Oh, okay.

You think it’s settled law that the Supreme Court may overturn. How unsettling.

 

[larkin31]

Oh brother! When and where did I “reduce the value of marriage to procreation only?” It is the primary value to civilization, as a whole, but I never said it was the only value. I think it’s pretty funny to bring in the spiritual aspect though. Generally, we Catholics are told to keep religion out of it. Now that I’ve done that, you want to slam me for ignoring the spiritual aspect?

You are denying the right to marriage to gays ON ONE VALUE. That is why I am focusing ON THAT ONE VALUE. If you have other reasons (values), then lay them out and I will broaden my response, too. But as far as I can tell, it all comes down to pro-creative potential. Tell me otherwise, if I have it wrong.

 

[1234]

Oh brother! When and where did I “reduce the value of marriage to procreation only?” It is the primary value to civilization, as a whole, but I never said it was the only value. I think it’s pretty funny to bring in the spiritual aspect though. Generally, we Catholics are told to keep religion out of it. Now that I’ve done that, you want to slam me for ignoring the spiritual aspect?

***Rather, I just state Church teaching and discuss the value of a homosexual relationship to society (zero). ***

That’s* your *quote, Rig. By alleging that homosexual unions are of zero benefit to society you are attributing the one thing these unions lack, procreative ability, as the only quality of value in a marriage. Hoisted on your own petard, I say.

 

[larkin31]

Ah, I see…so then you are okay with a mother marrying her son or brother? They can raise children too.

OMG

the incest thing again

this is so boring to hear

 

[rlg94086]

Heterosexual relationships have one of many values, as do homosexual relationships. If marriage had a unique value in being fertile then common law relationships would be infertile, which they aren’t.

That doesn’t make any sense.

1234:

Heterosexual marriage is such a debased coin these days–in my state, there are billboards trying to persuade people to marry–that I think many people, apparently including Catholics, feel that if homosexuals want to try something with a 50% failure rate, let them have at it.

Ah yes…the “marriage is in shambles, so what difference does it make” argument. I’ve heard that many times. I say, if it is such a terrible thing, then there is no reason to extend it to same-sex couples.

 

[rlg94086]

OMG

the incest thing again

this is so boring to hear

Yes, because you can’t refute my point, using hysteria is your only response.

 

[rlg94086]

***Rather, I just state Church teaching and discuss the value of a homosexual relationship to society (zero). ***

That’s* your *quote, Rig. By alleging that homosexual unions are of zero benefit to society you are attributing the one thing these unions lack, procreative ability, as the only quality of value in a marriage. Hoisted on your own petard, I say.

Not at all. Church teaching is that marriage is both unitive and procreative. From a non-religious standpoint, the procreative nature is the primary source of value to society. Individual homosexuals have value, but their relationship has no value to society.

 

[rlg94086]

You are denying the right to marriage to gays ON ONE VALUE. That is why I am focusing ON THAT ONE VALUE. If you have other reasons (values), then lay them out and I will broaden my response, too. But as far as I can tell, it all comes down to pro-creative potential. Tell me otherwise, if I have it wrong.

Yes, the intrinsic value of procreation is what gives value to society. As you pointed out, anyone can raise a child. If that was the primary value, then marriage is a free for all.

Would you prefer it in the words of the bishops?
nccbuscc.org/laity/marriage/samesexfaqs.shtml

Why can marriage exist only between a man and a woman?
The natural structure of human sexuality makes man and woman complementary partners for expressing conjugal love and for transmitting human life. Only a union of male and female can express the sexual complementarity willed by God for marriage. This unique complementarity makes possible the conjugal bond that is the core of marriage. The permanent and exclusive commitment of marriage is the necessary context for the expression of sexual love intended by God both to serve the transmission of human life and to build up the bond between husband and wife.

Why is a same-sex union not equivalent to a marriage?
A same-sex union contradicts the nature and purposes of marriage. It is not based on the natural complementarity of male and female. It cannot cooperate with God to create new life; and the natural purpose of sexual union cannot be achieved by a same-sex union. Because persons in a same-sex union cannot enter into a true conjugal union, it is wrong to equate their relationship to a marriage.

What unique contributions does marriage between a man and woman make to society?
Marriage is the fundamental pattern for male-female relationships. It contributes to society because it models the way in which women and men live interdependently and commit, for the whole of life, to seek the good of each other. The marital union also provides the best conditions for raising children: namely, the stable, loving relationship of a mother and father present only in marriage. The state rightly recognizes this relationship as a public institution in its laws because the relationship makes a unique and essential contribution to the common good.
Pope Benedict XVI recently said of marriage: “To recognize and assist this institution is one of the greatest services that can be rendered nowadays to the common good and to the authentic development of individuals and societies, as well as the best means of ensuring the dignity, equality and true freedom of the human person” (Homily at the Concluding Mass of the Fifth World Meeting of Families, July 9, 2006).

 

[StAnastasia]

That’s* your *quote, Rig. By alleging that homosexual unions are of zero benefit to society you are attributing the one thing these unions lack, procreative ability, as the only quality of value in a marriage.

In my sons’ eighth grade class at our Catholic parish school, there are two couples who adopted girls from the same Chinese orphanage. One couple is heterosexual and infertile; the other couple is lesbian. Both couples are doing remarkable jobs of raising their daughters, who are well-adjusted, studious, sporty, and fun-loving girls. Both couples are valued by our school community. Both couples are making a solid contribution to our society. Both couples are well liked, and are respected by our parish priests.

StAnastasia

 

[rlg94086]

In my sons’ eighth grade class at our Catholic parish school, there are two couples who adopted girls from the same Chinese orphanage. One couple is heterosexual and infertile; the other couple is lesbian. Both couples are doing remarkable jobs of raising their daughters, who are well-adjusted, studious, sporty, and fun-loving girls. Both couples are valued by our school community. Both couples are making a solid contribution to our society. Both couples are well liked, and are respected by our parish priests.

StAnastasia

So, all you have are anecdotals? Did you read my post quoting our Bishops? Their faqs match my arguments, so I’m curious to see if you are going to refer to them as ignorant bigots, as well.

 

[1234]

So, all you have are anecdotals? Did you read my post quoting our Bishops? Their faqs match my arguments, so I’m curious to see if you are going to refer to them as ignorant bigots, as well.

*Whose *bishops?

 

[StAnastasia]

So, all you have are anecdotals? Did you read my post quoting our Bishops? Their faqs match my arguments, so I’m curious to see if you are going to refer to them as ignorant bigots, as well.

You say anecdotes; I say personal experience. I’ve known hundreds of gay and lesbian couples in many walks of life, as parishioners, fellow theologians, fellow choir members, fellow room parents at our Catholic school. Yes, I read your post quoting the bishops.

 

[rlg94086]

*Whose *bishops?

Our Bishops - the USCCB.