The Consequences of Redefining Marriage

[Joe_5859]

I know, I know, not another thread on this topic.

I just wanted to draw people’s attention to this excellent article I just came across:

catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0513.htm

It’s one of the best, most succinct, non-religious articles in favor of traditional marriage that I have come across. It does a good job of responding to many of the common questions:

Why is the government even in the marriage business at all?
How does gay marriage affect your marriage anyway?
etc.

I just thought I’d share. Here are the first three paragraphs to get you started:

I come at this as a matter of public policy and ask the question, why is the government in the marriage business in the first place? Why does government recognize marriage, why does marriage matter for the political community, how ought we to define marriage, and why does it matter?

I structure my remarks around three basic things: What is marriage, why does marriage matter, and what will the consequences be of redefining marriage?

The simplest way to get at this is to say that from the government’s perspective, it doesn’t care about your love life. Government is not in the marriage business because it cares about adult romance. Government is in the marriage business because the union of a man and woman can produce a child, and children deserve a relationship with their mom and dad. That’s the reason we have government in the bedroom.

(read more)

 

[theCrow]

ANY loving couple can produce a child, it’s called adoption.

Therein lies the biggest dilemma. If you base marriage on a union being able to produce a biological child, well then a man and woman who are married and cannot produce a child due to biological child, or do not wish to or have children, this point becomes moot.

 

[christus_vincit]

ANY loving couple can produce a child, it’s called adoption.

How exactly does adoption “produce” a child? A child comes only from the relations of a man and a woman. Even “test tube” babies require a mother and a father. Adoption doesn’t produce a child. Adoption gives an extant child a home.

 

[LoganBice]

ANY loving couple can produce a child, it’s called adoption.

Therein lies the biggest dilemma. If you base marriage on a union being able to produce a biological child, well then a man and woman who are married and cannot produce a child due to biological child, or do not wish to or have children, this point becomes moot.

Here is a purely secular argument in support of trad marriage. But keep in mind the Catholic view of marriage is deeper then the secular view.

1. The more children who are raised in environments that are favorable to homosexuality,the more homosexuals there will be.
2. Homosexual parentage is favorable to homosexuality developing in children.
3. Homosexual “marriage” will result in more homosexual parentage, and more homosexuals.
4. The more homosexuals there are, the fewer heterosexuals there will be.
5. The fewer heterosexuals there are, the fewer traditional, procreative heterosexual marriages there will be.
6. Traditional, procreative heterosexual marriages are good and necessary for society.
7. Therefore, homosexual parentage harms traditional marriage, or at least undermines its secular purpose, which is procreation and the rearing of adults who will also procreate, thus ensuring the survival of society.

 

[marymary1975]

Great article. It is true. The government doesn’t care about. All they care is to have a generation younger of workers that can replace the retiring generation and (which the article doesn’t mention) how to handle property and inheritances. The figure of marriage is a figure that is used because the state wants to promote something…hence marriage brings benefits. They give benefits to married ppeople people they want to make it attractive for people. The reason why they want to promote is because there is centuries of research that says marriages produces more stable people. Children out of wedlock statistically have higher rates of crime. Crime costs money to States and troubled kids cost money to the states. So the states want to promote marriage to reduce their costs and to reduce crime etc. A child who is raised by both biological parents tends to be less troubled and that is what government wants. So yes very good article.

 

[phil19034]

Here is a purely secular argument in support of trad marriage. But keep in mind the Catholic view of marriage is deeper then the secular view.

1. The more children who are raised in environments that are favorable to homosexuality,the more homosexuals there will be.

2. Homosexual parentage is favorable to homosexuality developing in children.

1. Homosexual “marriage” will result in more homosexual parentage, and more homosexuals.
2. The more homosexuals there are, the fewer heterosexuals there will be.
3. The fewer heterosexuals there are, the fewer traditional, procreative heterosexual marriages there will be.
4. Traditional, procreative heterosexual marriages are good and necessary for society.
5. Therefore, homosexual parentage harms traditional marriage, or at least undermines its secular purpose, which is procreation and the rearing of adults who will also procreate, thus ensuring the survival of society.

Anyone who doesn’t believe this… just look at the lesbian who was on American Idol this year. She was raised by two lesbian woman. While being raised by gay parents doesn’t automatically mean the child will be gay, it does reinforce a different way of looking at sexual relationships, which could be harmful to the child early or later in life.

 

[marymary1975]

ANY loving couple can produce a child, it’s called adoption.

Therein lies the biggest dilemma. If you base marriage on a union being able to produce a biological child, well then a man and woman who are married and cannot produce a child due to biological child, or do not wish to or have children, this point becomes moot.

This is not true. Behind every adoption there are two biological parents who abandoned anchild. In order for a homosexual couple to adopt a child they need two biological parents abandoning that child. Biological parents abandoning their kids is a massive problem that puts a lot of weigh on a state and forces the government to put lots of money into resolving this problem.

Then again if most biological parents would raise their kids responsibly (which is the goal of porting marriage) the state would be less burden by abandonment of children.

Adoption is and should be just a solution to an existing problem. The way you phrase it seem to encourage putting kids for adoption which means it is also encouraging people to abandon their biological children. That shouldn’t be done.

 

[phil19034]

excellent article.

I wish everyone would read it.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Here is a purely secular argument in support of trad marriage. But keep in mind the Catholic view of marriage is deeper then the secular view.

1. The more children who are raised in environments that are favorable to homosexuality,the more homosexuals there will be.
2. Homosexual parentage is favorable to homosexuality developing in children.
3. Homosexual “marriage” will result in more homosexual parentage, and more homosexuals.
4. The more homosexuals there are, the fewer heterosexuals there will be.
5. The fewer heterosexuals there are, the fewer traditional, procreative heterosexual marriages there will be.
6. Traditional, procreative heterosexual marriages are good and necessary for society.
7. Therefore, homosexual parentage harms traditional marriage, or at least undermines its secular purpose, which is procreation and the rearing of adults who will also procreate, thus ensuring the survival of society.

As with all utilitarian arguments, this argument tries to predict the future. It’s full of speculation. Also, it’s a rather callous argument, since it – at first glance, at least – seems to suggest that a world without gay people is ideal. I don’t see any Catholic teachings that suggest that.

Indeed, one might launch a similar argument against the priesthood.

1. The more children who are raised in environments that are favorable to the priesthood,the more priests there will be.
2. The more priests there are, the fewer straight couples there will be.
3. The fewer straight couples there are, the fewer traditional, procreative heterosexual marriages there will be.
4. Traditional, procreative heterosexual marriages are good and necessary for society.
5. Therefore, the priesthood harms traditional marriage, or at least undermines its secular purpose, which is procreation and the rearing of adults who will also procreate, thus ensuring the survival of society.

 

[LoganBice]

As with all utilitarian arguments, this argument tries to predict the future. It’s full of speculation. Also, it’s a rather callous argument, since it – at first glance, at least – seems to suggest that a world without gay people is ideal. I don’t see any Catholic teachings that suggest that.

Indeed, one might launch a similar argument against the priesthood.

1. The more children who are raised in environments that are favorable to the priesthood,the more priests there will be.
2. The more priests there are, the fewer straight couples there will be.
3. The fewer straight couples there are, the fewer traditional, procreative heterosexual marriages there will be.
4. Traditional, procreative heterosexual marriages are good and necessary for society.
5. Therefore, the priesthood harms traditional marriage, or at least undermines its secular purpose, which is procreation and the rearing of adults who will also procreate, thus ensuring the survival of society.

I personally think that there is no good argument from a secular point of view that will satisfy non religious people. Without God morals such as this just decay.

 

[KP3243]

All I know when you refine an institution that majority of people are in there are going to be consequences. If your only bar now is that two people love each other, the next group is going to say why just two? Then you have a problem for the already married couples. If your husband likes his secretary or wife likes her boss and they go and marry their co- workers while they still married to you, are you are stuck in horrid situations that are disgusting and the ultimate utilitarian use of human beings.

 

[KP3243]

ANY loving couple can produce a child, it’s called adoption.

Therein lies the biggest dilemma. If you base marriage on a union being able to produce a biological child, well then a man and woman who are married and cannot produce a child due to biological child, or do not wish to or have children, this point becomes moot.

You are not adopted!!! Let me tell you something I have one sibling who was adopted who has great respect for her birth mother for giving her up for adoption although she does not want to meet her and a her 5 other biological siblings because it would be too painful to see them all together. My other sibling hates HATES and that is being generous, his birth mother and thinks what she did was the worst for form of rejection and evil another human can impose on another and if we knew who his birth mother is, believe me he would want to see her because he would love to tell her how much he hates her. When he got divorced, he made sure his only child was in his custody because he was not going to lose the only blood relative he has. We all grew up with two parents who could not love us any more but both of my siblings have two common reactions to being adopted. Your logical fallacy is that human beings don’t have serious questions and serious longing to know where they came from. Every day you wake up and you know, the people that created you are not in your life. Adoption is great but it should not become the norm, human beings do the best when they are raised in a loving home with the parents that created them. We should strive for this!

 

[randomusername]

There’s a slippery slope in redefining marriage. Traditional marriage is the union of one man and one woman. A traditional marriage almost always leads to children(or at least they used to before secularism). The Government wants children to be born and be raised by two parents so that there will be a capable generation to replace the retiring one.

If we change the definition to marriage being a union of two adults who love each other, then the chances of a child being produced from that union will be much lower. Marriage will no longer be useful to the Government. And, once we change the definition of marriage, polygamists and incestous people will want to change the definition further. Pedophiles and people who like beasiality will also want to change the definition. Then that 0.00000000001% of the population that are attracted to objects(yes they exist, although my percentage was made up) will want it changed as well. The Government’s hands will be tied in this situation. If they don’t support these new causes, then they are refusing these people the right to marriage and they can be accused of bigotry. At first, as with same-sex marriage, most of the population will be opposed to the cause of these groups, society will grow more and more accepting and supporting of these people. And eventually we could see people getting married to dogs.

 

[LoganBice]

You are not adopted!!! Let me tell you something I have one sibling who was adopted who has great respect for her birth mother for giving her up for adoption although she does not want to meet her and a her 5 other biological siblings because it would be too painful to see them all together. My other sibling hates HATES and that is being generous, his birth mother and thinks what she did was the worst for form of rejection and evil another human can impose on another and if we knew who his birth mother is, believe me he would want to see her because he would love to tell her how much he hates her. When he got divorced, he made sure his only child was in his custody because he was not going to lose the only blood relative he has. We all grew up with two parents who could not love us any more but both of my siblings have two common reactions to being adopted. Your logical fallacy is that human beings don’t have serious questions and serious longing to know where they came from. Every day you wake up and you know, the people that created you are not in your life. Adoption is great but it should not become the norm, human beings do the best when they are raised in a loving home with the parents that created them. We should strive for this!

Please don’t generalize. I was adopted and I have no want to meet my biological parents because I have a loving family here and they are my real parents because they raised me. I have no burning questions or hate. I have absolutely no hate for my biological mother. She was 16 and I know that she had enough love for me not to abort me but to give me life and a better family that she could not supply me. That to me is a great amount of love. So people all have different feelings toward it and it is unique based off their circumstances.

 

[KP3243]

As with all utilitarian arguments, this argument tries to predict the future. It’s full of speculation. Also, it’s a rather callous argument, since it – at first glance, at least – seems to suggest that a world without gay people is ideal. I don’t see any Catholic teachings that suggest that.

Indeed, one might launch a similar argument against the priesthood.

1. The more children who are raised in environments that are favorable to the priesthood,the more priests there will be.
2. The more priests there are, the fewer straight couples there will be.
3. The fewer straight couples there are, the fewer traditional, procreative heterosexual marriages there will be.
4. Traditional, procreative heterosexual marriages are good and necessary for society.
5. Therefore, the priesthood harms traditional marriage, or at least undermines its secular purpose, which is procreation and the rearing of adults who will also procreate, thus ensuring the survival of society.

To be fair the Priesthood is a calling by the Holy Spirit and Catholic priests advocate tradition marriage and naturally family planning, it wasn’t until about 40 years ago that majority of Catholics in the West started having small families.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

To be fair the Priesthood is a calling by the Holy Spirit and Catholic priests advocate tradition marriage and naturally family planning, it wasn’t until about 40 years ago that majority of Catholics in the West started having small families.

Fair point. But I’m sure gay marriage advocates could argue that gay marriage strengthens straight marriages. Again, the problem is that we’re arguing purely on the basis of predicting the future.

 

[KP3243]

Please don’t generalize. I was adopted and I have no want to meet my biological parents because I have a loving family here and they are my real parents because they raised me. I have no burning questions or hate. I have absolutely no hate for my biological mother. She was 16 and I know that she had enough love for me not to abort me but to give me life and a better family that she could not supply me. That to me is a great amount of love. So people all have different feelings toward it and it is unique based off their circumstances.

That is why I used both of my siblings, they are on both sides of the spectrum about being adopted. One has great respect for her mother who could not care for another child and my brother hates his mother who was 17 when she gave him up for adoption. I am certain this poor woman loves my brother dearly and has suffered greatly in her life but both siblings have to deal with the fact the people that created them are not in their lives. I am sure there have been times when you have thought about your biological parents despite the fact you have two living parents and siblings.

 

[LoganBice]

That is why I used both of my siblings, they are on both sides of the spectrum about being adopted. One has great respect for her mother who could not care for another child and my brother hates his mother who was 17 when she gave him up for adoption. I am certain this poor woman loves my brother dearly and has suffered greatly in her life but both siblings have to deal with the fact the people that created them are not in their lives. I am sure there have been times when you have thought about your biological parents despite the fact you have two living parents and siblings.

Oh I apologize I didn’t read it very well then. I’m using my iphone so it’s a bit small. My apologies

 

[KP3243]

Fair point. But I’m sure gay marriage advocates could argue that gay marriage strengthens straight marriages. Again, the problem is that we’re arguing purely on the basis of predicting the future.

Everyone thought Pope Paul VI was basing the Church’s stance on artificial contraception on predicting the future except he was right on every point. The Church has the responsibility of protecting things that are sacred, and the human person is the most sacred. Even if attacks on sacred things haven’t happened, the Church has the responsibility to prevent them as well.

 

[mikekle]

How exactly does adoption “produce” a child? A child comes only from the relations of a man and a woman. Even “test tube” babies require a mother and a father. Adoption doesn’t produce a child. Adoption gives an extant child a home.

Keep in mind, they are very close to being able to give ANY number of mixture of people regardless of gender, the ability to conceive a child, I watched a long program about this, apparently they are getting close to being able to take genetic material from 2 men, 2 women, 4 men, 6 men, 55 men, so on and so on, with virtually NO limits on how many ‘parents’ a child can have…I was surprised how close they are to this, I think we will see this happen within 20 yrs or sooner.

Although Im fairly sure God will not permit such a thing to become a reality, I hope so anyway, it would be the ultimate abomination, I dont think God would sit idly by and just let this take place. I think this would be on the same level as our scientific world eventually beating death…this is also something they are getting close to as well!!!