Same-sex marriage: where does my objection go wrong?

[iloveangels]

In this thread, I wish to have a civil debate about my core objection to one of the most frequently cited rationales for prohibiting same-sex marriage. I (and others) must have had this debate over a thousand times, and I can’t for the life of me understand why opponents don’t realize that my objection is fatal to their argument. Maybe someone here can (civilly) show me why I’m wrong.

Opponents of SSM often adopt the following argumentative strategy: point to something that same-sex couples can’t do (i.e., procreate), and then assert that it is rational to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying on that basis. Essentially, because same-sex couples (unlike opposite-sex couples) can’t procreate, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

My objection: The inability to procreate has never been a requirement for a marriage license, so whether same-sex couples can meet it shouldn’t matter. We don’t prohibit people from entering into legal contracts – and civil marriage is a legal contract – because they can’t meet NON-requirements, which is precisely what the “inability to procreate” criterion is. **So why should the right for same-sex couples to marry turn on whether or not they can meet a non-existent requirement? ** That is the key question for me.

The problem is that what homosexuals really want is approval. Above all and primarily, that’s what they really want. And they’ll never get it. No matter how they try to force the Church to marry them or approve of them or whatever.

What they’re trying to do is actually tragic, if you step back a bit and just observe. I mean, even chickens & dogs get this most basic act of biology right most of the time. Only human beings try to make a virtue out of failure like this.

 

[mark_a]

IMy objection: The inability to procreate has never been a requirement for a marriage license, so whether same-sex couples can meet it shouldn’t matter. We don’t prohibit people from entering into legal contracts – and civil marriage is a legal contract – because they can’t meet NON-requirements, which is precisely what the “inability to procreate” criterion is. **So why should the right for same-sex couples to marry turn on whether or not they can meet a non-existent requirement? ** That is the key question for me.

Really, from a Catholic perspective, the ssm question is just another in the long line of schizoid questions which began with the contraceptive mentality. In other words, it’s the pot calling the kettle black.

God loves practicing homosexuals just as much as he loves contracepting heteros and the whole world . The only difference is it’s just a wee bit harder for us judgemental folks to determine if heteros are infertile or contracepting.

 

[iloveangels]

Really, from a Catholic perspective, the ssm question is just another in the long line of schizoid questions which began with the contraceptive mentality. In other words, it’s the pot calling the kettle black.

God loves practicing homosexuals just as much as he loves contracepting heteros and the whole world . The only difference is it’s just a wee bit harder for us judgemental folks to determine if heteros are infertile or contracepting.

Hey, your post makes no sense whatsoever. It’s classical Christian theology that God loves everybody. It’s not classical Christian theology that he approves of everything, because HE DOESN’T!

And if a person has a homosexuality problem, it’s hardly any consolation that heteros who contracept are also in the divine doghouse and probably risking hell more or less just as much, I suppose. Hell is hell.

 

[spencelo]

It’s because a man and a woman is the only type of love that can result in new people – new citizens that a gov’t wishes to protect.

First, the only type of union that can produce children are non-impotent, non-sterile opposite-sex couples. The State does not limit marriage to unions of that type.

Second, you are simply repeating the claim that, because same-sex couples can’t procreate, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry, without interacting with my objection that that requirement has never been a requirement for a marriage license. Why should the right to marry for same-sex couples turn on whether or not they can meet a non-existent requirement? You haven’t answered this question.

 

[jenwha]

Why are you caring so much about legal rights when you already have half the world up in arms and sympathy over the “purple folks” and the Pride Parades, and the day of silence, What more do you want from the legal system? Rewrite the law books specifically for LGBT? i’ve noticed that the active and practicing homosexuals get more sympathy and respect than the normal, married couple with Children, anyone else seen this trend?

Ya think? It’s an endless, endless, endless, endless rant of a militant minority towards Christians. It’s Christianophobia! It’s hate speech! I read today in the liberal Huffington Post about a lesbian in Nebraska who was attacked, and 90% of the hate filled comments from the homosexuals accused “hate filled speech from Christians” as being entirely responsible for this person being attacked. And…it gets better… simply because we don’t agree with them, we are the ones who “hate.” Unbelievable.

I don’t agree with my boss a lot. I must HATE him!!!

I don’t agree with marrying a lamppost, my car, or my dog, or my father, but why can’t I? I demand my rights!

Gays are not being discriminated against. You have every right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Gay “marriage” is not a marriage. God alone made marriage, for one man, and one woman. The secular world may make it “valid”, as it is already in some states, but it is not and will never be a marriage in God’s eyes. Never, never, never. Sorry.

 

[spencelo]

but rather that it be two people whose bodies are ordered toward procreation.

The “ordered towards procreation” requirement is a Catholic requirement. Why should the secular State adopt a solely Catholic (hence religious) criterion for marriage? (Btw, impotent couples can get married, and their bodies aren’t ordered towards procreation).

 

[iloveangels]

First, the only type of union that can produce children are non-impotent, non-sterile opposite-sex couples. The State does not limit marriage to unions of that type.

Second, you are simply repeating the claim that, because same-sex couples can’t procreate, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry, without interacting with my objection that that requirement has never been a requirement for a marriage license. Why should the right to marry for same-sex couples turn on whether or not they can meet a non-existent requirement? You haven’t answered this question.

I was going to say that the ability to reproduce had nothing to do with it, which is true in some senses. Because this matter is not a simple one and has a lot of aspects.

But there is one way in which it does have a very historical, very real way to do with the ability to reproduce. American law is based on Anglo-Saxon common law. The code of AS historical common law was very carefully written to cover cases in which a child was produced within 9 months of the father’s demise in battle, making the child legally his, because naturally possible. Gays cannot EVER actually produce a child, even though a couple can, by dint of a miracle perhaps, but still they definitionally can because to make a child takes one male and one female. Even if a man is cuckolded, and even if the couple had not previously produced children, if the child is born within 9 months of his death, it is legally his because of the marriage, unless it can be positively proven otherwise, according to AS historical common law.

Now there are many reasons why this is only part of the answer, and some of those are theological and legal. But this is a historical natural part of the answer to the question, yes. History counts.

 

[mark_a]

Hey, your post makes no sense whatsoever.

That’s about normal for me.

It’s classical Christian theology that God loves everybody. It’s not classical Christian theology that he approves of everything, because HE DOESN’T!

I’m sorry, I missed the part where I said God approves of everything, or even ssm or contraception.

And if a person has a homosexuality problem, it’s hardly any consolation that heteros who contracept are also in the divine doghouse and probably risking hell more or less just as much, I suppose. Hell is hell.

That is exactly my point. The contracepting pot is calling the homosexually active kettle black.

 

[mymamamary]

The problem is that what homosexuals really want is approval. Above all and primarily, that’s what they really want. And they’ll never get it. No matter how they try to force the Church to marry them or approve of them or whatever.

What they’re trying to do is actually tragic, if you step back a bit and just observe. I mean, even chickens & dogs get this most basic act of biology right most of the time. Only human beings try to make a virtue out of failure like this.

Exactly what i’ve been saying, they want approval for the lifestyle but wont get it from me…

 

[iloveangels]

That’s about normal for me.

I’m sorry, I missed the part where I said God approves of everything, or even ssm or contraception.

That is exactly my point. The contracepting pot is calling the homosexually active kettle black.

None of this makes any sense either.

In case you haven’t noticed, there are plenty of people who are neither contracepting nor homosexual.

 

[Stephen168]

Second, you are simply repeating the claim that, because same-sex couples can’t procreate, they shouldn’t be allowed to marry, without interacting with my objection that that requirement has never been a requirement for a marriage license.

What is marriage? How can you make claims about something when you don’t know what it is.

 

[mymamamary]

The “ordered towards procreation” requirement is a Catholic requirement. Why should the secular State adopt a solely Catholic (hence religious) criterion for marriage? (Btw, impotent couples can get married, and their bodies aren’t ordered towards procreation).

Becuase, only the Catholic version works. The rest flops. One institution was established by Our Blessed LORD, the other by fallible man. and Btw, Impotent couples are ordered towards procreation, biologically, but homosexuals, nope, sorry. Like I and other posters here have said, Its all for approval, the parades, the pride days, the protests, the days of silence, the political lobbying and pop culture propoganda, yup, its all for approval. However, you wont find approval from me.

honestly, why doesn the Holy Father just take over the world and establish a Catholic Monarchy? The world would be so much better, and less crazed.

 

[spencelo]

What is marriage? How can you make claims about something when you don’t know what it is.

Civil marriage has a pretty clear referent in law. If you don’t understand what civil marriage is (and how it’s distinct from religious marriage), I suggest you do a quick google search of the term.

 

[livingwordunity]

The biggest objection to so-called “same-sex marriage” is that it’s a lie. And the only way to accept it is to deny the existence of natural law, objective reality, objective reason, objective morality, and objective truth.

 

[spencelo]

Becuase, only the Catholic version works. The rest flops. One institution was established by Our Blessed LORD, the other by fallible man. and Btw, Impotent couples are ordered towards procreation, biologically, but homosexuals, nope, sorry. Like I and other posters here have said, Its all for approval, the parades, the pride days, the protests, the days of silence, the political lobbying and pop culture propoganda, yup, its all for approval. However, you wont find approval from me.

honestly, why doesn the Holy Father just take over the world and establish a Catholic Monarchy? The world would be so much better, and less crazed.

If the Catholic marriage requirements are adopted as State requirements, would atheists be allowed to marry?

 

[mymamamary]

Look at how many faithful civil marriages happen? not a whole lot, while contrast the Faithful, CATHOLIC marriages Also, like I’ve said, and dont dodge the point, What more legal rights do the homosexuals want from a morally, politically, and above all Spiritually degenerate society? they have already given homosexuals a whole ton of rights. What more do you want?

Its all for approval, watch him dodge my points

 

[spencelo]

The biggest objection to so-called “same-sex marriage” is that it’s a lie.

That doesn’t even make sense. A lie is, at minimum, a false statement that one utters with knowledge of its falsity. “Same-sex marriage” isn’t even a statement.

 

[iloveangels]

The biggest objection to so-called “same-sex marriage” is that it’s a lie.

And a biological short-circuit. There are a certain number of these found in nature: lambs born with hearts on the outside, chickens with 2 heads etc. They happen because the world isn’t perfect, but they aren’t the norm and can never be because they’re biological failures, short-circuits, blind alleys that can happen but don’t favor survival.

When they happen to human beings, we build up a lot of emotional stuff around them in attempts to understand them, but they are what they are. We may even simulate them, because we can and human beings are very adaptable monkeys like primates, but they’re still blind-alleys, mistakes. They are not the norm and can never be.

 

[spencelo]

What more do you want?

The right to be treated equally under the law. Denying same-sex couples the right to marry is one example of unequal, discriminatory treatment.

 

[mymamamary]

Same sex marriage is a statement, it has grammar in it, uses english, phonetics and letters. Thus, it is a statement. Just like “I ate a orange” both are statements.