The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

[rossum]

Divorce is an unfortunate social issue but it is not necessarily immoral, not intrinsically evil. Same sex behavior (acts) is always immoral and intrinsically disordered, a sin. Just explaining what the CC teaches for you to understand why she would not deem divorce as a comparable referendum matter.

Please look again at the title of this thread: “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage” (emphasis added). The secular state is not in the business of enforcing religious doctrine, or are you looking for all non-Christian places of worship to be closed down by the state? Such places are after all immoral and sinful by the First Commandment.

It does not lead to the social common good

I think that the American Constitution is right when it talks about the pursuit of happiness.

rossum

 

[sw85]

Just reposting this, rossum, in case you missed my response to your concerns re: the fertility argument.

In the case of menopause, there is no objective “age of menopause” and so any determination must necessarily be either arbitrary or grossly intrusive on the government’s part.

This goes even moreso for the case of infertility, since infertility is largely probabilistic and cannot be measured without excessive invasion of privacy.

Think of it this way. Why do we have a drinking age of 21? To keep the immature from drinking. But plenty of people are immature who can legally drink, and plenty of people are younger than 21 who are highly mature. We use age as a proxy for maturity because maturity cannot be assessed without a highly intrusive process of inquiry on the government’s part. Likewise with fertility.

EDIT: All of this is of course simply a justification for the civil definition of marriage. The natural law (Catholic) definition of marriage permits the elderly and infertile to marry so long as they are capable of completing the sexual act, because morality consists in using one’s faculties in a manner consistent with their end, regardless of whether or not they are capable of achieving that end.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Please look again at the title of this thread: “The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage” (emphasis added). The secular state is not in the business of enforcing religious doctrine, or are you looking for all non-Christian places of worship to be closed down by the state? Such places are after all immoral and sinful by the First Commandment.

I think that the American Constitution is right when it talks about the pursuit of happiness.

rossum

You brought up the Catholic Church with your post saying:

Merely because you personally, or the Catholic Church, is against something does not make it referendum-worthy. Should the allowing of divorce in civil marriage have been put to a referendum for instance?

Secular reasons have been posted which you conveniently skipped. Now you go off tangent by raising enforcement of religious doctrine and a question on closure of non-Christian churches.

The pursuit of happiness in the American Constitution is a favorite grab by homosexualists to force SSM, but the rest of the laws are not interpreted this way. Incidentally, the UK has not reached the conclusion that SSM is necessary and civil partnerships suffice. The British have it right: SSM is superfluous.
,

 

[rossum]

In the case of menopause, there is no objective “age of menopause” and so any determination must necessarily be either arbitrary or grossly intrusive on the government’s part.

This goes even moreso for the case of infertility, since infertility is largely probabilistic and cannot be measured without excessive invasion of privacy.

Just add a new question to the application for a marriage licence. Alongside “Date of Birth” have a tick box for “Fertile/Infertile”.

rossum

 

[sw85]

Just add a new question to the application for a marriage licence. Alongside “Date of Birth” have a tick box for “Fertile/Infertile”.

rossum

Or we can just use sex, since male/female couples are intrinsically fertile and same-sex couples are intrinsically not.

Like we currently do.

 

[rossum]

Or we can just use sex, since male/female couples are intrinsically fertile and same-sex couples are intrinsically not.

False. If the female is past the menopause, or if the male has had an orchidectomy. And with modern artificial methods, most lesbian couples will have one or both being fertile.

rossum

 

[Elizabeth502]

With modern artificial methods, most lesbian couples will have one or both being fertile.

rossum

Not. With. Each. Other.

Rossum, what about opposite sexes and biology do you not understand? We haven’t quite reached Brave New World stage yet. The majority of babies are not yet created in sterile, distant laboratories, but n Mommy’s and Daddy’s internal, natural laboratories.

 

[rossum]

Not. With. Each. Other.

So? Are you going to ban adoption by married couples because the children aren’t conceived by both parents.

There is no current requirement in heterosexual marriage that all children be genetically related to both parents. There is no legal ban on using a sperm donor if the husband is infertile. Why do you suddenly find these things problematical in a same-sex couple when they are not a problem with opposite-sex couples?

rossum

 

[sw85]

False. If the female is past the menopause, or if the male has had an orchidectomy. And with modern artificial methods, most lesbian couples will have one or both being fertile.

rossum

I gather you don’t know what the word “intrinsic” means.

It means pertaining to the essence of. The essence of the male-female union is fertile (hence why literally everyone who exists was born of a male-female pairing); this is true even if there are individual male-female unions that are not fertile, just as surely as it is the essence of man to have two legs even though there are individuals who have only one leg (either by accident or by congential birth defect). In both cases, we recognize their infertility or one-leggedness as a defect, that is, a departure from the norm – the norm being fertility.

By contrast male-male unions and female-female unions are intrinsically infertile. It is part of the essence of their union that they cannot conceive. Why in the world would we extend civil marital recognition, marriage being an institution aimed at establishing a legal framework within which couples can discharge their procreative potential, to a couple that by the very nature of their union can never produce a child of their own?

 

[exnihilo]

So? Are you going to ban adoption by married couples because the children aren’t conceived by both parents.

There is no current requirement in heterosexual marriage that all children be genetically related to both parents. There is no legal ban on using a sperm donor if the husband is infertile. Why do you suddenly find these things problematical in a same-sex couple when they are not a problem with opposite-sex couples?

rossum

Your whole argument seems to be that there are no natural classifications to anything. There is nothing normal and thus nothing abnormal. It reminds me of what Chesterton said:

"Thus when Mr. H. G. Wells says (as he did somewhere), “All chairs are quite different”, he utters not merely a misstatement, but a contradiction in terms. If all chairs were quite different, you could not call them “all chairs.”

To illustrate a chair is still a chair even if one of its legs is sawed off. And this chair might still be good for sitting in, but is less optimal, and certainly imperfect. But what you seem to be arguing is that a table is just as good as a chair. Both have four legs but their purpose is different and each is best suited to its design.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So? Are you going to ban adoption by married couples because the children aren’t conceived by both parents.

That question has been asked and answered on many previous CAF threads during your active enrollment on this forum, and I think you know that. (That includes threads you have participated in.) Posters are not required to keep answering the same questions asked, just because you want to keep alive the (im)possibility that the Roman Church will change its core doctrine on human sexuality. Not during your lifetime, not during countless lifetimes to come.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

That question has been asked and answered on many previous CAF threads during your active enrollment on this forum, and I think you know that. (That includes threads you have participated in.) Posters are not required to keep answering the same questions asked, just because you want to keep alive the (im)possibility that the Roman Church will change its core doctrine on human sexuality. Not during your lifetime, not during countless lifetimes to come.

Dang----this is getting mildly nasty on BOTH sides in here-----ain’t it?

I do agree with the previous poster’s idea that left-leaning people tend to see nothing abnormal about ANYTHING.

I also agree with you, Elizabeth502, that Rossum’s apparent wish to change the teachings of the CC is not going to happen. Sorry, no can do.
Let’s just try to be civil here on both sides, Ok? Nobody’s going to change each other’s minds here-----but we can at least be charitable here (that goes for you, too, Rossum).

 

[rossum]

I gather you don’t know what the word “intrinsic” means.

It means pertaining to the essence of. The essence of the male-female union is fertile (hence why literally everyone who exists was born of a male-female pairing); this is true even if there are individual male-female unions that are not fertile, just as surely as it is the essence of man to have two legs even though there are individuals who have only one leg (either by accident or by congential birth defect). In both cases, we recognize their infertility or one-leggedness as a defect, that is, a departure from the norm – the norm being fertility.

By contrast male-male unions and female-female unions are intrinsically infertile. It is part of the essence of their union that they cannot conceive. Why in the world would we extend civil marital recognition, marriage being an institution aimed at establishing a legal framework within which couples can discharge their procreative potential, to a couple that by the very nature of their union can never produce a child of their own?

How is this relevant to secular law? You are arguing from a Thomist position, which is not relevant to secular lawmaking.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Your whole argument seems to be that there are no natural classifications to anything.

I am not discussing natural classifications. I am discussing secular legal classifications. Look again at the title of this thread.

rossum

 

[rossum]

That question has been asked and answered on many previous CAF threads during your active enrollment on this forum, and I think you know that. (That includes threads you have participated in.) Posters are not required to keep answering the same questions asked, just because you want to keep alive the (im)possibility that the Roman Church will change its core doctrine on human sexuality. Not during your lifetime, not during countless lifetimes to come.

I do not expect the Catholic Church to change its attitude to same sex marriage any time soon. The Church has not yet come round to recognising divorce, (though there are a suspiciously large number of anullments), so it is hardly going to change on same sex marriage.

However, that is not relevant to this thread. I do expect many countries, and US states, to change their secular laws to allow either same sex marriage or some equivalent civil union for same sex couples.

rossum

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I am not discussing natural classifications. I am discussing secular legal classifications. Look again at the title of this thread.

rossum

I will say, Rossum, that the law is getting changed more and more to the point where NOTHING is considered “safe” to “classify.”

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I do not expect the Catholic Church to change its attitude to same sex marriage any time soon. The Church has not yet come round to recognising divorce, (though there are a suspiciously large number of anullments), so it is hardly going to change on same sex marriage.

However, that is not relevant to this thread. I do expect many countries, and US states, to change their secular laws to allow either same sex marriage or some equivalent civil union for same sex couples.

rossum

Pardon my “intrusion” here, Rossum--------

But do not the majority of the Buddhist scriptures (both Theravada and Mahayana) speak against homosexuality? (At least the PRACTICE of it; not necessarily SSA).

As far as I know from what I’ve read.

Just asking.

Don’t have to answer if you don’t want to.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I do not expect the Catholic Church to change its attitude to same sex marriage any time soon. However, that is not relevant to this thread.

It is extremely relevant to this thread, because all persons of religious affiliation, and all religions as institutions, are granted a voice in the affairs of State. They are not to be refused a voice in the affairs of State, by anything in our founding documents. Not only for Catholics, but for Mormons, Jews, and others, one’s religious beliefs are extremely relevant to voting decisions and to civic actions of all kinds.

That doesn’t mean that there are not also plenty of strictly-secular arguments against gay “marriage” by those of no religious affiliation, or arguments which do not emanate from any religious belief. (I linked one of those earlier in this thread.)

All law has some moral basis. Law is not devoid of morality in the western world.

 

[sw85]

How is this relevant to secular law? You are arguing from a Thomist position, which is not relevant to secular lawmaking.

rossum

First, how is natural law incompatible with secular lawmaking? It’s rationally unavoidable; it’s not as if it was disputably handed down on stone tablets from Mt. Sinai.

And second, it is highly relevant. As I said, the state uses sex as a proxy for fertility because it cannot assess fertility in a manner that is not (a) arbitrary and (b) grossly intrusive.

And the basis for using sex as a proxy for fertility is that heterosexual couples are intrinsically fertile while homosexual couples are not.

 

[Elizabeth502]

heterosexual couples are intrinsically fertile while homosexual couples are [intrinsically] not.