Same-sex marraige: honestly, what is the point?

[Felasco]

Howdy Josh, thanks for engaging my comments.

I find the mistreatment of any person to be completely unacceptable, so I absolutely agree, I’d be quick to refute anyone who didn’t agree.

Thank you for this as well. So we perhaps come to the following question?

Would it be mistreatment if our neighbors passed laws denying Catholics the right to marry?

Catholics and Christians generally have been a targeted victim group in the past, and still are today in some parts of the world, so the question is not purely hypothetical.

If we establish the principle that it’s ok for us to deny our peaceful law abiding neighbors legal rights that we claim for ourselves, what’s to stop others from using this principle to do the very same thing to us?

In such a event, how would we object to such a process, if we ourselves have used the same procedure?

That’s odd … fully equal? how do we make a homosexual union and a heterosexual union fully equal? How do we make homosexuality and heterosexuality fully equal?

We make both unions equal in the eyes of the law.

How do we make the difference in the human anatomy of men and women, their sexual compatibility and complementarity with one another irrelevant to marriage?

By the word anatomy I assume you’re referring to the ability to create children.

My wife and I have been married for 30 years, and have never had children. Many millions of couples share this situation, some by choice, some for medical reasons.

If a gay marriage is inferior because it hasn’t produced children, why is my marriage also not inferior? If gay marriages should be prohibited for this reason, why not mine too?

I propose that this debate really has little to do with the needs of children.

If the debate was about the needs of children, then we should at least be able to enthusiastically agree that gay couples should be encouraged to adopt the millions of children around the world that nobody else wants.

I’ve yet to meet a gay marriage opponent who can support this proposal, thus I’ve concluded their objections are not about the needs of children, but something else.

We might also note that there is no shortage of children in the world, with human populations predicted to grow by 50% in coming decades, to what may prove to be unsupportable levels.

Ok, your turn Josh, go for it.

And thanks again for engaging my remarks.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

IMHO I think allowing non Catholics gay marriage might be okay. The problem for me is that we’ll end up like in Denmark, where catholic priests are sued for not marrying homosexuals. Is this against church teaching?

 

[Felasco]

IMHO I think allowing non Catholics gay marriage might be okay. The problem for me is that we’ll end up like in Denmark, where catholic priests are sued for not marrying homosexuals. Is this against church teaching?

For the record, I have no problem with Catholic priests declining to perform gay marriages.

I don’t know the situation in Denmark, but I really can’t imagine any American law which would require priests to marry gay couples.

 

[Chan26]

Hi all,

(iii) It’s about property and its regulation - now, I think this has an element of truth, in that inheritances and so forth are more easily passed on to those to whom one is married. But, I don’t think this can be the primary legalised social function of marriage. After all, other property relationships and laws to regulate them exist (in civil unions, for instance, or “next of kin” relationships), and we don’t consider these marriages. Moreover, one does not have to enter into a “marriage” with someone solely to leave property to them.

There are over 1000 financial benefits to straight marriage that are not available to same sex marriages or civil unions. Furthermore, secular marriage has no effect on the sacrament of marriage nor are secular laws of any consequence to the sacrament of marriage.Ask yourself, if you are Catholic, Suppose the Pope were to declare that Catholics shall not engage in some war and the Federal government were to draft you to soldier in that war. What would you do, obey the Pope or the Government? The point is that government is not the ultimate authority on matters of morals and so, the government that rules that all humans should be treated equally, has no effect on a religion that believes it must treat humans unequally.
Personally, I think the Bill of Rights beautifully expresses Jesus’ teaching to love your neighbor as yourself.
chan26

 

[JimG]

IMHO I think allowing non Catholics gay marriage might be okay. The problem for me is that we’ll end up like in Denmark, where catholic priests are sued for not marrying homosexuals. Is this against church teaching?

Well, that’s a possibility. But the greater possibility is that any number of business get run out of business for refusing to acquiesce to the government religion of gay marriage. There will be lawsuits, charges of ‘hate crime’ and ‘hate speech’ merely for stating Catholic teaching.

But that’s not the worst part. It’s quite likely that marriage itself, as an institution will come to be seen as not meaning much, and just decline, as in Sweden, where fewer people get married since the advent of gay marriage. After all, what’s the point? If marriage can mean anything, it means nothing.

And when marriage means nothing, families also have less meaning. The cease to be the glue that holds civilization together. Children are unanchored. The whole society gradually crumbles.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

That does make sense.

 

[Felasco]

And when marriage means nothing, families also have less meaning. The cease to be the glue that holds civilization together. Children are unanchored. The whole society gradually crumbles.

Gay marriage is now legal in parts of the United States, and none of the above is happening, or shows any signs of happening.

 

[JimG]

Gay marriage is now legal in parts of the United States, and none of the above is happening, or shows any signs of happening.

We are yet in the early stages of cultural decline. I would recommend two books–one is Carle Zimmerman’s “Family and Civilization,” which reviews how changes in family structure have affected civilizations. The other is “Adam and Eve After the Pill” by Mary Eberstadt, which specifically reviews that effects of the sexual revolution which began in the 1960’s on many areas of contemporary life.

Neither one places the blame on homosexual marriage or even on gays; after all, the decline in values that caused the decline in family structures preceded the gay rights issues. But gay marriage would simply represent a further decline of family. And as family goes, so goes civilization.

 

[Felasco]

And as family goes, so goes civilization.

Civilization goes when we start denying our peaceful law abiding neighbors rights that we claim for ourselves.

 

[JimG]

Civilization goes when we start denying our peaceful law abiding neighbors rights that we claim for ourselves.

If you are speaking of marriage, then I presume that you would deny marriage to no category of citizens.

With respect to same sex couples, marriage is not denied, it is just an impossibility. The law may certainly recognize impossibilities as legal, if fictional, entities, but that is not a good sign.

 

[josh987654321]

Howdy Josh, thanks for engaging my comments.

Likewise

Thank you for this as well. So we perhaps come to the following question?

Would it be mistreatment if our neighbors passed laws denying Catholics the right to marry?

Catholics and Christians generally have been a targeted victim group in the past, and still are today in some parts of the world, so the question is not purely hypothetical.

If we establish the principle that it’s ok for us to deny our peaceful law abiding neighbors legal rights that we claim for ourselves, what’s to stop others from using this principle to do the very same thing to us?

In such a event, how would we object to such a process, if we ourselves have used the same procedure?

Interesting way you phrased that question, you said “Denying us the right to marriage.” Are you talking about criminalizing marriage between Catholics? or are you simply talking about not recognising such marriages by law? If it is the latter than it wouldn’t really make much difference because Catholics have always held marriage as a sacrament between the couple and God, this is why marriages are held in a Church and performed by a priest, many times throughout history Christian marriages never had legal recognition anyway.

If your talking about recognising unions as marriages under the law, id like to ask if you realise that the same goes for polygamy, incest and any other union that somebody wishes to call a marriage?

So let me ask you, what is marriage? and if marriage has many meanings, than which one(s) should the law recognise? and if they recognise only some, wouldn’t that be discrimination towards the others like polygamous and incestuous marriage that they don’t recognise?

We make both unions equal in the eyes of the law.

Are they equal though? how do you define heterosexuality and homosexuality?

By the word anatomy I assume you’re referring to the ability to create children.

Nope, I am talking about the fundamental principal of marriage being the compatibility and complementarity between a man and a woman which is rooted in natural law itself. Only a man and a woman are capable of the sexual act targeted towards procreation (I’m not talking about it resulting in procreation, but it’s the sexual act that is open to it), the marital act.

My wife and I have been married for 30 years, and have never had children. Many millions of couples share this situation, some by choice, some for medical reasons.

If a gay marriage is inferior because it hasn’t produced children, why is my marriage also not inferior? If gay marriages should be prohibited for this reason, why not mine too?

Put quite simply, because it’s physically impossible for a gay couple to have sexual relations in the appropriate manner in which you and your wife are capable of. They simply don’t have the right parts.

I propose that this debate really has little to do with the needs of children.

It’s a valid point though, marriage is about family, so when you establish equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality when it comes to marriage and family, you are saying that children don’t need a mother and a father, but can do just as well with two mums or two dads, which I think is incorrect.

If the debate was about the needs of children, then we should at least be able to enthusiastically agree that gay couples should be encouraged to adopt the millions of children around the world that nobody else wants.

There isn’t a “one size fits all” solution when it comes to adoption, however I don’t think taking into account the lack of a father figure or mother figure should be unlawful, which is exactly what will happen with the equality of homosexuality and heterosexuality.

I’ve yet to meet a gay marriage opponent who can support this proposal, thus I’ve concluded their objections are not about the needs of children, but something else.

What does an adolescent say to themselves about acting on their own sexual desires, about sexual morality, when people say that the sexual acts of homosexuality are immoral and are accused of “bigotry” “oppressing” and “hate speech”? Or when the sexual acts of homosexuality are labelled as moral and an encouraged variant of sexuality?

We might also note that there is no shortage of children in the world, with human populations predicted to grow by 50% in coming decades, to what may prove to be unsupportable levels.

I don’t know much about this.

Ok, your turn Josh, go for it.

And thanks again for engaging my remarks.

No worries, Likewise, Thank you also.

Your turn Felasco

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Felasco]

If it is the latter than it wouldn’t really make much difference because Catholics have always held marriage as a sacrament between the couple and God, this is why marriages are held in a Church and performed by a priest, many times throughout history Christian marriages never had legal recognition anyway.

So you have no objection if gay activists or others were to successfully impose the same legal restrictions on Catholic couples that many (but not all) Catholics wish to impose on others?

Please recall that if young Catholics are not legally married by the state, they won’t have the protection of marriage in a variety of circumstances. Ok with you?

If your talking about recognising unions as marriages under the law, id like to ask if you realise that the same goes for polygamy, incest and any other union that somebody wishes to call a marriage?

A tiny handful of people want polygamy to be marriage, and nobody wants incest to be marriage. These are bogus arguments, and a sign of desperation.

So let me ask you, what is marriage? and if marriage has many meanings, than which one(s) should the law recognise? and if they recognise only some, wouldn’t that be discrimination towards the others like polygamous and incestuous marriage that they don’t recognise?

Apologize, I mean no offense, but I’ll await your next post with hope of better to come.

 

[josh987654321]

So you have no objection if gay activists or others were to successfully impose the same legal restrictions on Catholic couples that many (but not all) Catholics wish to impose on others?

What legal restrictions?

Please recall that if young Catholics are not legally married by the state, they won’t have the protection of marriage in a variety of circumstances. Ok with you?

What protection?

Same sex marriage doesn’t legalise a homosexual union, it publicly recognises it as equivalent to a heterosexual union, which it obviously isn’t. To think that would mean to ignore the basic human anatomy of men and women and their sexual compatibility and complementarity with one another.

A tiny handful of people want polygamy to be marriage, and nobody wants incest to be marriage. These are bogus arguments, and a sign of desperation.

Does it matter how many people want it? Homosexuals are also a minority group. It’s either discrimination by your standards or it isn’t, the question is, how are we discriminating when we say that gender matters and yet you aren’t when you say that number matters when it comes to marriage?

I don’t think it’s desperation, I think it’s a very relevant and valid point. Same sex marriage advocates ask how we can force our belief of marriage between a man and a woman onto those who think it should be between two people.

Yet how can they force their belief of marriage between two people onto those who believe it should be between more than two people?

So if we are discriminating against homosexuals by not recognising their unions as marriages, than they are discriminating against polygamists by not recognising their unions as marriages etc etc. So like I said the question is, what is marriage? how do you define marriage? and if marriage has many meanings, than which one(s) should the law recognise? and if they recognise only some, wouldn’t that be discrimination towards the others like polygamous and incestuous marriage that they don’t recognise?

Apologize, I mean no offense, but I’ll await your next post with hope of better to come.

Oh, I didn’t mean to reply in an offensive way, none was taken and I also mean no offense

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[ManOnFire]

Maybe I missed it, but please…somebody tell me what benefit there is to society by promoting sodomy? Because that is what is at the root of this whole issue.

slow worldwide depopulation, brought by the atheist progressives. They believe that if God doesn’t exist, then why not get some control over all those carbon burners taxing the planet?

 

[JimG]

slow worldwide depopulation, brought by the atheist progressives. They believe that if God doesn’t exist, then why not get some control over all those carbon burners taxing the planet?

Well, the depopulation may not be so slow. Inertia can keep the world population rising until about 2050. After that, due to declining fertility rates, particularly in the western world but also beginning to show up globally, depopulation will kick in with a vengeance, bringing problems of demographic instability, older populations, not enough younger workers, economic stagnation. The great recession is nothing compared to what depopulation brings with it. And a depopulation spiral, once begun, is hard to stop.

 

[holyrood]

A tiny handful of people want polygamy to be marriage, and nobody wants incest to be marriage. These are bogus arguments, and a sign of desperation.

As recently as perhaps twenty years ago, nobody wanted homosexual marriage, either. Fifteen years ago, a tiny handful of people wanted homosexual marriage.

That tiny handful of people will grow. If marriage can include two men, there’s absolutely no reason to limit it to two. That’s only a social construct, after all.

I’m sorry, these are not bogus and not signs of desperation. I have a friend who’s ‘polyamorous,’ and as a result am somewhat familiar with what’s going on there. There are already pushes for group marriage. It’s already happening, even if it’s not yet as visible as gay marriage.

 

[jonathan_hili]

Here’s an attempt to understand why the gay community wishes to have the right to be legally married, in the same way the rest of us are.

It’s an indisputable fact that millions of gay people have been abused and oppressed for centuries, resulting in a great deal of unjust suffering.

Gays have been denied jobs and housing, and civil rights we straight people claim for ourselves. They’ve been insulted, mocked, slandered, black mailed, beat up on the streets, and sometimes murdered, simply because they were gay.

Any population that has suffered such repression over such a long period would understandably be looking to the dominant culture for evidence that such a long standing pattern of abuse is really at an end.

I believe this is what lies at the heart of activism on the gay marriage issue.

It should be added that it’s not only gays who hope to see such evidence that this pattern of abusing gays is really over.

Many straight people, including many Christians, also find this longstanding pattern of abuse of a traditional victim population to be completely unacceptable, and thus hope to codify a fully equal status for gay persons in to law.

I completely agree with you, Felasco. However, it doesn’t follow from this (i.e. unjust persecution) that same-sex marriage is either legitimate or that it even makes sense.

But thanks for your point. If this debate helps increase understanding and empathy, that would be at least a good thing.

 

[Chan26]

That doesn’t answer the question, but I’ll give you the respect of an answer to yours.

Unless the couple advertises their infertility by marching in “infertile couple pride parades” it would be highly unlikely that anybody would know they are “infertile.”

And even if they did advertise, it detracts not one iota from the fact that their sexual congress is biologically, physiologically, anthropologically normal, natural and healthy.

An infertile couple also detracts not one iota from the fact that they exemplify the norm in marital relationships.

I would also be so bold as to posit that the likelihood is pretty high that at least one of the people in an infertile couple is actually fertile, so you never know.

You do know that it is absolutely, positively, unequivocally impossible for homosexuals to conceive via sodomy.

How confusing do you think it is for children when they finally figure out what gay “marriage” actually entails?

Now…care to answer my question?

Suppose two heterosexuals know they are infertile and marry, motivated at least in part by their wish to not have children but remain good Catholics and not have to practice birth control? Sinful?
Suppose, two homosexuals marry and are both infertile and they know it, since they can’t reproduce, why is it of concern to the Church that they not have sexual congress or get married?
How confusing is it to find out that straight marriage is often about power and control and a mindset that can laugh at "Take my wife, please."

chan26

 

[kanrok]

Suppose two heterosexuals know they are infertile and marry, motivated at least in part by their wish to not have children but remain good Catholics and not have to practice birth control? Sinful?
Suppose, two homosexuals marry and are both infertile and they know it, since they can’t reproduce, why is it of concern to the Church that they not have sexual congress or get married?
How confusing is it to find out that straight marriage is often about power and control and a mindset that can laugh at "Take my wife, please."

chan26

Why is it so hard to get a simple answer to a simple question?

Care to take a whack at it?

What benefit is there to society by promoting sodomy?

 

[kanrok]

The authentic Catholic teaching on same sex “marriage” shows more love to our SSA brothers and sisters than supporting it. Our job as Catholics is not to pat people on the head, give them a balloon and say “everything is going to be all right.” If we as Catholics truly believe that a person is at risk for losing their salvation by committing mortal sin, then we have a duty not to support them in doing so. By supporting gay “marriage” we might as well be saying “go to hell.” It might not be the most PC thing you ever heard, but I firmly believe that any authentic Catholic who supports gay marriage is fomenting scandal. That is all.