The Marriage Debate - The conjugal view of marriage leaves us just as free for companionship

  • Thread starter Thread starter westNwewaxation
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They already know this…they just want everyone else to be okay with their sin.
 
However, it does undeniably deprive the couple in question certain civil, legal, and social privileges. Whether or not homosexual partners SHOULD have these privileges is a different discussion entirely, but married couples, at least in the United States, can do many things that unmarried couples simply cannot. There are visitation problems in hospitals, which is one of the most serious things. There are issues with next-of-kin and inheritance. There is the overall sense of legitimization of the relationship (again, whether they have a right to this sense is a different question). Plus, for those homosexuals who are devout Christians of some denomination or another, but who read Scripture’s condemnation of homosexuality as for some reason or another not binding, or for those of other religions which do not have similar principles (i.e., New Age and Wiccan paths), there is the spiritual issue of the unique spiritual bond in marriage. In my opinion, the argument that homosexuals shouldn’t want to marry because they have companionship anyway shows a complete and fundamental misunderstanding about what marriage entails in the real world.

I am in favor of homosexual marriage (although I don’t claim to know whether or not God recognizes the spiritual union) personally, but again, the things I’ve said here are objectively true regardless of position.
 
Well we’re all entitled to our opinion but as far as facts go I just do not believe this is really about hospital visitation or any such benefit. If this was really about hospital visitation and such as that, the problem would be solved already by bundling said benefits into a form of legal domestic partnership gays can register for and the problem would have been solved long ago. This is exactly what happened in Washington State, for example. They had their “everything but marriage” law, signed by a Catholic governor. But Liberals pushed for and got a redefinition of marriage in the law anyway - even though it changed nothing in terms of benefits to gays. The gay partnerships were already identical to marriage in state law in every way except the name “marriage”. It was the social liberals there and in CA and elsewhere who are not satisfied with any compromise. They insist on redefining marriage, although they don’t say it that way. They keep conflating the idea of equality with sameness and haven’t been satisfied with anything short of redefining marriage, even though they can attain most of their demands, and all of their reasonable ones, via domestic partnerships.

So to me the bigger question is “what is marriage?”. The article in the OP focuses on one point or argument: this notion that some people have that gays are being denied relationships or that gays are “banned” from having ceremonies and calling their relationships marriages. The issue is not giving them more freedom, it is forcing everybody else to define them as marriages when they are not really the same thing as husband and wife.
 
IgnatianAthlete said:
In my opinion, the argument that homosexuals shouldn’t want to marry because they have companionship anyway shows a complete and fundamental misunderstanding about what marriage entails in the real world.
Click to expand...
I would agree in terms of this being the essence of the disagreement. And I think the opposing opinion is, at its foundation, a sort of mirror image of this, in that in the “real world” 2 men simply are not the same thing as husband and wife, and that it’s not really possible or honest to deny that fundamental reality.

But in effect redefining marriage does just that. Redefining marriage basically makes it the law that 2 men who say they have married each other must be treated in the law, education, business, etc exactly as if they were husband and wife. This analogy breaks down most obviously, and I think most tragically, when they claim they have a right to children “just like straight people”. This isn’t really physically possible - it’s not a matter of some unjust man-made discrimination, it’s the reality of gender biology. Yet we see this idea that this is unfair gaining ground, and I am acquainted professionally with homosexuals who are shoe horning themselves into the role of parents by IVF, surrogate motherhood, as well as adoption, thinking it their “right”. Who is there to advocate for the child’s rights? To me, this violates a child’s right to have a parental relationship with both his mother and father. I don’t mean to cast stones at homosexuals who do this, but I have to question what kind of moral precepts they are basing their actions on because I honestly believe this is very wrong and unjust to the child, to deliberately rig it so they will not have a parent of each gender, both a Mom and a Dad. It’s not just that they are making bad choices, it’s that they want what amounts to societal approval for it by equating it with marriage.

For me, I guess to sum it up, marriage means husband and wife for a reason, because it describes a particular reality, a male-female union of persons. Same-sex couples simply are not the same thing, and should not be called the same thing in the law, and people should not be pressured by law to speak and act as if they are the same thing in schools, businesses, and throughout the public square. One of their talking points used to be “how does my gay marriage affect you?”, well as often happens when you change the law it affects everybody in one way or another.
 
westNwewaxation said:
Well we’re all entitled to our opinion but as far as facts go I just do not believe this is really about hospital visitation or any such benefit. If this was really about hospital visitation and such as that, the problem would be solved already by bundling said benefits into a form of legal domestic partnership gays can register for and the problem would have been solved long ago. This is exactly what happened in Washington State, for example. They had their “everything but marriage” law, signed by a Catholic governor. But Liberals pushed for and got a redefinition of marriage in the law anyway - even though it changed nothing in terms of benefits to gays. The gay partnerships were already identical to marriage in state law in every way except the name “marriage”. It was the social liberals there and in CA and elsewhere who are not satisfied with any compromise. They insist on redefining marriage, although they don’t say it that way. They keep conflating the idea of equality with sameness and haven’t been satisfied with anything short of redefining marriage, even though they can attain most of their demands, and all of their reasonable ones, via domestic partnerships.

So to me the bigger question is “what is marriage?”. The article in the OP focuses on one point or argument: this notion that some people have that gays are being denied relationships or that gays are “banned” from having ceremonies and calling their relationships marriages. The issue is not giving them more freedom, it is forcing everybody else to define them as marriages when they are not really the same thing as husband and wife.
Click to expand...
westNwewaxation said:
I would agree in terms of this being the essence of the disagreement. And I think the opposing opinion is, at its foundation, a sort of mirror image of this, in that in the “real world” 2 men simply are not the same thing as husband and wife, and that it’s not really possible or honest to deny that fundamental reality.

But in effect redefining marriage does just that. Redefining marriage basically makes it the law that 2 men who say they have married each other must be treated in the law, education, business, etc exactly as if they were husband and wife. This analogy breaks down most obviously, and I think most tragically, when they claim they have a right to children “just like straight people”. This isn’t really physically possible - it’s not a matter of some unjust man-made discrimination, it’s the reality of gender biology. Yet we see this idea that this is unfair gaining ground, and I am acquainted professionally with homosexuals who are shoe horning themselves into the role of parents by IVF, surrogate motherhood, as well as adoption, thinking it their “right”. Who is there to advocate for the child’s rights? To me, this violates a child’s right to have a parental relationship with both his mother and father. I don’t mean to cast stones at homosexuals who do this, but I have to question what kind of moral precepts they are basing their actions on because I honestly believe this is very wrong and unjust to the child, to deliberately rig it so they will not have a parent of each gender, both a Mom and a Dad. It’s not just that they are making bad choices, it’s that they want what amounts to societal approval for it by equating it with marriage.

For me, I guess to sum it up, marriage means husband and wife for a reason, because it describes a particular reality, a male-female union of persons. Same-sex couples simply are not the same thing, and should not be called the same thing in the law, and people should not be pressured by law to speak and act as if they are the same thing in schools, businesses, and throughout the public square. One of their talking points used to be “how does my gay marriage affect you?”, well as often happens when you change the law it affects everybody in one way or another.
Click to expand...
This is a strong response, and I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to respond. It’s been a very busy couple of days for me!

First of all, I’d like to take issue with one minor detail in your argument which I’ve heard a lot from those on the opposite side as me, and I admit is only marginally pertinent to your larger argument–you call accepting homosexual marriage “redefining marriage” a lot. I’m not arguing that it isn’t redefining marriage; some people probably are, but it most definitely is redefining marriage. But we need to ask whether redefining marriage in order to make it a purer reality, or at least more relevant to modern secular society, is strictly a bad thing.

Disclaimer about the following: I’m not comparing those who have orthodox belief about gay marriage to racists or sexists (though I’ll admit sexism is also incredibly prevalent in many of the same circles, but that’s not the point), this is just an example of the point I’m trying to make.

Continued-- (sorry about how many posts this is going to take; this post is long!)
 
Back a hundred–or really, even fifty on a societal level–years in the USA, marriage was well established as “a usually lifelong bond between a man and a woman who are very strictly of the same race; in which the male initiates every major aspect of the relationship, and the female is subject to him”. The definition of marriage DOES change as society changes, and conservatives are always opposed to it, but except for fringe minorities, they always end up admitting that the just changes were better in the end. Marriage isn’t the same as it was a hundred years ago. Mixed-race couples are legal now, and even acceptable. Females have significantly more right to self-determination, and while I’m not sure 100% what the orthodox opinion is on this, most Catholics I have known consider it a very good thing. And, for good or evil (evil evil very very evil), over half of marriages now end in divorce. So I just want to point out first of all, that “changing the definition of marriage” is a non-issue. The question is whether we’re changing it in an appropriate way; because there have been lots of changes in the past couple centuries, some appropriate, some very inappropriate.

Now for the actual substance of your argument, which I summarize as the following: Under many circumstances, same-sex partners have had the opportunity to have all of their “just demands” met, such as hospital visitation and et cetera, where they receive all the same benefits as legally married couples under a social system which could be accurately described as “separate but equal”; and your second major point (more in illustration than support of the general “gay marriage is bad” argument) is that children are being deprived of something deeply important when they don’t have parents of both sexes to raise them, and that it is wrong to intentionally force that situation on a child. Please correct me if I’ve in any way misrepresented you here, and this affects my response.

“Separate but equal” simply isn’t equal. Even if the legal rights are technically there–which in most situations they aren’t at any rate, the cases you named are exceptions–“domestic partnerships” are not as good as marriages. This is true for a couple of reasons. First of all, and as a Catholic this should definitely make sense to you even though you won’t agree, legal marriage has the full force of tradition behind it. Domestic partnerships are an entirely modern, contemporary construct meant to construe certain benefits to people who are implied to be officially considered unsuited to have their love really acknowledged, but who will create too much of a fuss if not compromised with. As big a fan as I am of compromise, I’m a much bigger fan of equity. Domestic partnerships, while construing some legal benefits, simply do not and never will have the same spiritual, emotional, traditional, or societal worth as do marriages. These things matter to people; it’s not a wish for exactly-the-sameness (at least not except in extreme positions), it really and truly is a wish for equality, but because of the weight of history, equality will never be possible except through relative sameness. Domestic partnerships are a bad compromise, because there’s really no good compromise on this issue. Individuals are free to recognize as valid and spiritual any marriage they desire, and to withhold the same recognition from the same. Churches are (I believe they are–if they are not, then I agree that they ought to be) also free to recognize or not recognize any marriage they choose. But if the question is one of government and political rights, then there is a question they need to ask: is “change” actually the worst thing that can happen as a result of the legalization of gay marriage, at this stage? If it is, then “affected” or not, absolutely no one is actually harmed by it, and the government, as (in theory if not in practice) the guardian of Liberty in our society, has a positively bounden duty to uphold gay marriage. If it not the worst impact, that is, if people (especially heterosexual people) are harmed by homosexual marriage, then the government has the same bounden duty not to allow it. That leads into your second point.

Are children missing something very important when they are raised in a same-sex household? Well, the fast answer is “no, not usually”. There is some disagreement of course, but most credible psychologists (by which I mean, most psychologists who have conclusions backed with actual study and evidence, and not with unprovable, theoretical Freudian psycho-babble and nonsense) agree that the majority of children in same-sex households grow up just as functionally as those in heterosexual households. What’s more, because they often have experiences with many sorts of people, they are very often even more caring, understanding, loving, and spiritual than are children raised in heterosexual households. At least, there are few credible studies which suggest that they are less of any of those traits. It all depends on parental raising styles of course, but as a rule, the children grow up happy and healthy, and are strong, moral people by the time they are adults. Of course, if you do want to go the route of Freudian mumbo-jumbo, it is perfectly possible for children in same-sex households to find a role model of the unrepresented sex; no one to my knowledge has claimed role models have to parents…

So anyway, if I missed anything, do tell me. I await your response.
 
There are certainly a lot of red herrings thrown around on the subject. Durable power of attorney is a simple document to prepare and takes care of the hospital visits/decisions and property dispositions. That said, there ARE legal and tax benefits to marriage, but before crying “unfair” one should look at WHY those benefits exist in the first place.

I assert that the reason those perks exist is precisely because governments (used to) recognize that marriage is a relationship that is uniquely ordered towards creating and raising healthy and happy children. Before you launch into exceptions, look at the NATURE of the relationship. It is only in unusual circumstances that children DON’T result from marriage (health issues, selfish attitudes, post-menopausal marriage, etc). The nature of the relationship tends to that outcome (in other words you need to work hard at it to prevent that outcome from happening). What outcome? The outcome that carries an enormous financial cost to the couple: kids. The tax and legal benefits exist to at least partially offset those costs in recognition of the reliance society has on people entering into marriage (which tends to result in said children). Granting the benefit to the relationship is to the government’s benefit the same way that Blackjack’s rules benefit the casino, not the gambler. There are exceptions, but the house wins. In the case of intelligent marriage definition and benefits, society wins.

The relationship of two gay men simply does not have the same character. It is sterile by NATURE, not by exceptional circumstance. They don’t meet the qualifications for which government established preferential treatment for married people in the first place.

Yeah, but what about gays adopting kids? Again, it’s not the exceptional circumstance that determines policy it is the nature of the relationship. Face it, it is the VERY rare gay couple that both chooses to adopt and stays together long enough to raise that child. Exceptions exist, but exceptions don’t demonstrate the nature of something, the rule demonstrates the nature. Gay relationships resulting in successful adoptions are about as common as heterosexual marriages in which the couple purposely decides never to have kids. Both happen, but both are operating against the nature of their relationship. Humans do poorly at that over time.

All this adds up to why government has no business granting the perks and legal benefits of marriage to gay couples. Their relationship simply isn’t the relationship that the perks were designed to benefit.
 
I admit that this point stumped me. I concede that according to the rule, not the exception, heterosexuals have children, and homosexuals do not. I concede that the benefits exist to incentivize childbearing. I concede that more heterosexuals have children than homosexuals (and I’ve looked at statistics which prove it). However, I do not concede that given a truly equal atmosphere the numbers of heterosexuals and homosexuals would be as significantly different as they are now.

Those benefits do exist to incentivize couples to raise children. Homosexuals don’t have those benefits, and accordingly, often cannot afford to raise children, lacking tax benefits. At the very least it is a major discouragement; everything everywhere tells them they will fail, with no valid science behind it, and are pushed to not have children, as well as not being able to afford them. On top of this, it is significantly harder for same-sex partners to adopt children than for opposite-sex spouses to have them; or even to adopt them. Adoption is not an easy process by any stretch of the imagination; having unprotected sex is the easiest thing in the world. To complicate the matter further, many adoption systems are heavily reluctant to adopt out to homosexual partners based on unsupported psychological concerns, or out of sheer prejudice, and make it even more impossible for homosexual partners to adopt children than it is for heterosexual couples; particularly if they want to raise a child who fits certain criteria.

If it was as easy for homosexual couples to get children as for heterosexual couples, they would. In an equal atmosphere, they would be perfectly capable of adopting and giving a wanting home to unwanted babies of heterosexual couples, and the numbers would be MUCH more equal. You speak a lot about nature; but isn’t childbearing about nurture anyway?
 
IgnatianAthlete said:
I admit that this point stumped me. I concede that according to the rule, not the exception, heterosexuals have children, and homosexuals do not. I concede that the benefits exist to incentivize childbearing. I concede that more heterosexuals have children than homosexuals (and I’ve looked at statistics which prove it). However, I do not concede that given a truly equal atmosphere the numbers of heterosexuals and homosexuals would be as significantly different as they are now.

Those benefits do exist to incentivize couples to raise children. Homosexuals don’t have those benefits, and accordingly, often cannot afford to raise children, lacking tax benefits. At the very least it is a major discouragement; everything everywhere tells them they will fail, with no valid science behind it, and are pushed to not have children, as well as not being able to afford them. On top of this, it is significantly harder for same-sex partners to adopt children than for opposite-sex spouses to have them; or even to adopt them. Adoption is not an easy process by any stretch of the imagination; having unprotected sex is the easiest thing in the world. To complicate the matter further, many adoption systems are heavily reluctant to adopt out to homosexual partners based on unsupported psychological concerns, or out of sheer prejudice, and make it even more impossible for homosexual partners to adopt children than it is for heterosexual couples; particularly if they want to raise a child who fits certain criteria.

If it was as easy for homosexual couples to get children as for heterosexual couples, they would. In an equal atmosphere, they would be perfectly capable of adopting and giving a wanting home to unwanted babies of heterosexual couples, and the numbers would be MUCH more equal. You speak a lot about nature; but isn’t childbearing about nurture anyway?
Click to expand...
For the hypothetical children whom you would have adopted by these same-sex couples: Should they do without a mother or should they do without a father?
 
The ultimate end of same sex marriage is just this: the end of marriage. One same sex marriage advocate has made that explicit:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexuals) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that** the institution of marriage should not exist**. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.”

The unavoidable fact is that same sex ‘marriage’ is not marital. It can never be marital because there is no sexual complementarity. Human beings are made male and female for a reason, and that reason begins with sexual complementarity. Same sex unions can never be conjugal unions, can never never be procreative, can never be family forming, can never from the basis for a civilization.

If we wish to eliminate the institution of marriage, we have already made a start: with contraception, with divorce, with promiscuity, with out of wedlock births. But to complete the process, same sex marriage is necessary.
 
Monkey1976 said:
For the hypothetical children whom you would have adopted by these same-sex couples: Should they do without a mother or should they do without a father?
Click to expand...
Evidently, whichever sex isn’t present in the household. As I said in an above post, there is little or no valid and reliable scientific evidence that this harms the child growing up. There is plenty of valid and reliable scientific evidence that it does not. The almost-universal consensus of science is that growing up in a single-sex household does not have any substantial negative affect on most children growing up. And even if you want to take it in terms of insubstantiable psychodynamics, children can have role models other than their parents.
 
JimG said:
The ultimate end of same sex marriage is just this: the end of marriage. One same sex marriage advocate has made that explicit:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexuals) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that** the institution of marriage should not exist**. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.”

The unavoidable fact is that same sex ‘marriage’ is not marital. It can never be marital because there is no sexual complementarity. Human beings are made male and female for a reason, and that reason begins with sexual complementarity. Same sex unions can never be conjugal unions, can never never be procreative, can never be family forming, can never from the basis for a civilization.

If we wish to eliminate the institution of marriage, we have already made a start: with contraception, with divorce, with promiscuity, with out of wedlock births. But to complete the process, same sex marriage is necessary.
Click to expand...
The statements of that “advocate” do not represent the mainstream of people seeking equality for all. That person’s statements are offensive and repugnant to any person of reason, regardless of their political beliefs. And I think you’re using “marital” in a vague way. If you’re referring to sexual consummation, then they make do. And while they can never be procreative, it is true that many heterosexual couples have unwanted children, and would rather put the child up for adoption than abortion, thanks be to God, and if the end-all of marriage is raising children, then homosexual partners can and do raise those children and cause less children to go through and abuse and damaging foster system.
 
IgnatianAthlete said:
The statements of that “advocate” do not represent the mainstream of people seeking equality for all. That person’s statements are offensive and repugnant to any person of reason, regardless of their political beliefs. And I think you’re using “marital” in a vague way. If you’re referring to sexual consummation, then they make do. And while they can never be procreative, it is true that many heterosexual couples have unwanted children, and would rather put the child up for adoption than abortion, thanks be to God, and if the end-all of marriage is raising children, then homosexual partners can and do raise those children and cause less children to go through and abuse and damaging foster system.
Click to expand...
By marital I mean sexually complementarity. There is only one act of human sexual relations that can be deemed marital or conjugal, and it is the one which is anatomically possible only between man and woman. It is the only sexual act that is by nature procreative. That is, its end result tends toward procreation. Not every sexual act, not even every conjugal act, always results in procreation, but conjugal relations are a prerequisite for procreation.

Same sex relations, by their very nature, can never be procreative, can never be conjugal, can never be marital. That’s why same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms.

And yes, the lesbian advocate may be prescient, for marriage will indeed change. It will tend toward meaninglessness which will lead to its disappearance.
 
JimG said:
By marital I mean sexually complementarity. There is only one act of human sexual relations that can be deemed marital or conjugal, and it is the one which is anatomically possible only between man and woman. It is the only sexual act that is by nature procreative. That is, its end result tends toward procreation. Not every sexual act, not even every conjugal act, always results in procreation, but conjugal relations are a prerequisite for procreation.

Same sex relations, by their very nature, can never be procreative, can never be conjugal, can never be marital. That’s why same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms.

And yes, the lesbian advocate may be prescient, for marriage will indeed change. It will tend toward meaninglessness which will lead to its disappearance.
Click to expand...
It is true that conjugal relations are prerequisite for procreation, but not for raising children, and raising them well. The question you have to ask is this: which is more important, significant, and meaningful, and particularly which says more about a person, having a child, or raising a child, and providing a nurturing, loving atmosphere for the same? Except for exceptional circumstances, anyone male can procreate with any female. If you apply morality to it, and husband can procreate with any wife. That doesn’t mean they should raise children. Except for weird, unusual, freak exceptions, in a homosexual household, every child which enters the house is wanted, and loved, and provided for. But at any rate, even in moral terms, marriage is more than just vaginal sex. It is a fundamental spiritual and political union which defines marriage, not “marital” activities.

And marriage will definitely change, but that doesn’t mean it will tend toward meaninglessness. If every change meant a trend toward disappearance than marriage would have vanished entirely a couple hundred years ago, because change is constant and unavoidable. It’s about whether we’re making the right changes–which in this case, I hold we are. This doesn’t make marriage less meaningful; it makes it more meaningful, because it says that marriage is more than just sex, which is in itself of limited meaning. And it makes marriage more meaningful because it makes marriage more inclusive. And I think that’s more or less the fundamental crux and disagreement of the whole issue. The words of that pretend “advocate” do not represent the views and values of other, legitimate advocates and allies.
 
Marital relations not only generate children, but provide them with a mother and a father, providing them an identity, a family to which they are connected, and role models of masculinity and femininity. Because children take a long time to raise, marriage is not just complementary, but faithful, life-giving, and permanent.

As for same sex couples raising children, the current pope has in the past called gay adoption child abuse. Children ought not to be deliberately deprived of a mom and a dad.

Complementary sex is not the whole of marriage, but it is of the essence of marriage.

It might be more inclusive if one were to include boats and bikes in the definition of automobiles, but it would be no help in clarifying the nature of an automobile, in fact it would only confuse the issue. And no one would attempt to build a piece of machinery with non-complementary parts which don’t fit together correctly.

Marriage has changed over the course of centuries, but it has not been infinitely flexible. Families have changed from a patriarchal model to a domestic family model. A few times in history the model of families has become so disjointed and individualistic that the stability of families began to disintegrate. When that happens, the underlying society also disintegrates. I recommend Carle Zimmerman’s methodical long term study “Family and Civilization,” for a review of family types over the millennia. There were no same-sex marriages that formed the basis for a stable society. But same sex marriage is merely one of the final stages in the devolution of family. Once it is in place, there is worse to follow.
 
JimG said:
Marital relations not only generate children, but provide them with a mother and a father, providing them an identity, a family to which they are connected, and role models of masculinity and femininity. Because children take a long time to raise, marriage is not just complementary, but faithful, life-giving, and permanent.

As for same sex couples raising children, the current pope has in the past called gay adoption child abuse. Children ought not to be deliberately deprived of a mom and a dad.

Complementary sex is not the whole of marriage, but it is of the essence of marriage.

It might be more inclusive if one were to include boats and bikes in the definition of automobiles, but it would be no help in clarifying the nature of an automobile, in fact it would only confuse the issue. And no one would attempt to build a piece of machinery with non-complementary parts which don’t fit together correctly.

Marriage has changed over the course of centuries, but it has not been infinitely flexible. Families have changed from a patriarchal model to a domestic family model. A few times in history the model of families has become so disjointed and individualistic that the stability of families began to disintegrate. When that happens, the underlying society also disintegrates. I recommend Carle Zimmerman’s methodical long term study “Family and Civilization,” for a review of family types over the millennia. There were no same-sex marriages that formed the basis for a stable society. But same sex marriage is merely one of the final stages in the devolution of family. Once it is in place, there is worse to follow.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid that I have significant difficulty responding to the first thing you said; just because it’s so untrue from my perspective and my experience. If every marriage was perfect, every person was good, every pregnancy was planned, every child was loved, every person was masculine if they’re male and every person was feminine if they’re female, and every love was true, then yes, what you’re saying would be true, but they aren’t, and it isn’t. Marriage isn’t necessarily complimentary, gay or straight. Marriage isn’t necessarily faithful, gay or straight. Marriage isn’t necessarily life-giving, gay or straight; in fact, very often it’s life-taking. Marriage most definitely isn’t permanent, sad to say. As I said, a whopping 55% of marriages end in divorce. And that’s horrible. But true. And most of those divorces are heterosexuals, because most marriages are heterosexuals. Straight marriage doesn’t guarantee kids will be raised with any of the things you just said any more than gay marriage. All I can say is restate the fact that every child of homosexuals is wanted. That isn’t the case with heterosexuals.

You guys can keep reiterating that children need a mom and a dad all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that the overwhelming proportion of scientific studies disagree with you, no matter what the Holy Father or any other source that is not a credible, evidence based scientific study has to say about it.

Ignoring the fact that motorboats ARE automobiles ( ;p ), you are right in saying that increased inclusivity does not necessarily mean improvement and affirmation of essential meaning. However, in this case, it does, for all the reasons I have already named.

Gay marriage is no more “individualistic” than straight marriage. It is a bond based on love, affirmation, respect, dependence, and, in one word, unity. It does not contribute to the breakdown of family in the sense of individualism at least. And I would be very interested to read that article if I ever have the chance. I may find it very enlightening.
 
The Carle Zimmerman study I mentioned is not an article, it’s a book. Originally written in the 1940’s, Zimmerman did not concern himself with gay marriage in particular, since when he wrote, gay marriage was not a part of the data, going back for thousands of years.

Even without gay marriage, however, Zimmerman forecast a decline in marriage in the West, due to similar factors that had twice before in civilizational history led to the atomization of family rather than its integration.

A great deal has happened to the family since he wrote, and all of the factors since then are contributing to an even greater breakdown of family: contraception, divorce, promiscuity, adultery, pre-marital sex, out of wedlock births. Same sex marriage will only accentuate the trend even more.

For a more recent account of the effects of the sexual revolution since the 1960’s on the family, I would recommend Mary Eberstadt’s “Adam and Eve After The Pill.”

For an article about same sex marriage specifically, I would recommend this article by Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan Anderson.
 
IgnatianAthlete said:
However, it does undeniably deprive the couple in question certain civil, legal, and social privileges. Whether or not homosexual partners SHOULD have these privileges is a different discussion entirely, but married couples, at least in the United States, can do many things that unmarried couples simply cannot. There are visitation problems in hospitals, which is one of the most serious things. There are issues with next-of-kin and inheritance. There is the overall sense of legitimization of the relationship (again, whether they have a right to this sense is a different question). Plus, for those homosexuals who are devout Christians of some denomination or another, but who read Scripture’s condemnation of homosexuality as for some reason or another not binding, or for those of other religions which do not have similar principles (i.e., New Age and Wiccan paths), there is the spiritual issue of the unique spiritual bond in marriage. In my opinion, the argument that homosexuals shouldn’t want to marry because they have companionship anyway shows a complete and fundamental misunderstanding about what marriage entails in the real world.

I am in favor of homosexual marriage (although I don’t claim to know whether or not God recognizes the spiritual union) personally, but again, the things I’ve said here are objectively true regardless of position.
Click to expand...
Hi Ignatian, I get what you’re saying, but I don’t see why these civil, legal and social privileges cannot be extended to “de facto” couples (even of the same-sex variety) without tampering with marriage? It’s clear that the essence of marriage is the conjugal relationship to the birthing and rearing of children, and the principal reason why the state gets involved is to publicly connect this relationship of parents to one another and to their children, so that the responsibility of raising children is clearly defined. Since same-sex “marriages” by their very nature cannot be procreative, I really don’t see the point for fundamental altering, and consequently destroying, marriage.
 
IgnatianAthlete said:
You guys can keep reiterating that children need a mom and a dad all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that the overwhelming proportion of scientific studies disagree with you, no matter what the Holy Father or any other source that is not a credible, evidence based scientific study has to say about it.
Click to expand...
Huh? I haven’t seen any children born without a mum and a dad. The reality is you need a man and a woman to produce a child, and consequently children do need a mum and a dad. Wherever one of absent by design, it generally means some form of moral violence has been committed in the process, e.g. IVF, surrogacy, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top