"What Is Wrong With Homosexual Marriage?" A Catholic article

[QwertyGirl]

I guess it all boils down to what one believes the purpose of legal marriage should be.

 

[prayerrider]

I find it ironic–now that homosexuals have their same sex “marriage” laws passed, some of them insist that the now-meaningless secular definition of marriage mustn’t be distorted any further than it already has.
It’s a lot like the progression of edits painted on the side of the barn in Animal Farm.

 

[goout]

I guess it all boils down to what one believes the purpose of legal marriage should be.

What I hear you saying is it doesn’t matter what one believes about the purpose of marriage, beyond a financial and civil arrangement.

And if that is the case, why has a histrionic effort been made to call all of these arrangements “marriage”?

 

[Dakota111]

What don’t you understand…

I understand that the lame strawman basketball example you attempted got no comments nor “loves” from anyone here. I rest my case and have now buried your basketball with full honours in the backyard.

I also understand you have not provided a clear response to the actual point I raised with the following question.

The point is why should nobody, skillful parents not even be assessed [for adoption] simply because they are, in your view, in abnormal family situations…eg single, remarried, divorced, same sex etc etc.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Could you rephrase that question? I’m not sure that it’s a coherent sentence as written.

 

[Dakota111]

You are welcome, as is the usual “exam” protocol, to restate the question as you understand it and respond accordingly.

PS “nobody” is used as an adjective.

 

[goout]

I understand that the lame strawman basketball example you attempted got no comments nor “loves” from anyone here. I rest my case and have now buried your basketball with full honours in the backyard.

I also understand you have not provided a clear response to the actual point I raised with the following question.

The point is why should nobody skillful parents not even be assessed simply because they are, in your view, in abnormal family situations…eg single, remarried, divorced, same sex etc etc.

So you have no answer, I’lI will assume you see the analogy doesn’t work or you would be proofing it with sound logic. So now you avoid it. ok no problem.

Ok, let’s restate it:

Asserting that a gay union is the same as the union of a man and woman denies objectively real things about marriage. They, objectively speaking, cannot be the same thing. To claim so is nothing but an assertion.

By analogy, I can assert that I am a seven foot tall pro basketball player, and because maybe I sorta look like one, or because I just claim my rights as one, I am a pro basketball player.

You responded with an analogy like this:
You are a qualified pro basketball player but have been denied that status. That analogy does not work in relation to the gay union/marriage. If you objectively are something, that is different than not being something.

Anyone can see that you analogy doesn’t work, hopefully you can also.

 

[goout]

And the point is, the union of two same sex people cannot participate in the creation of human life as a marriage uniquely does.
And the creation and flourishing of human life is something of value.

Does anyone have a problem with this? Show of hands please.
Which part of it?

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Okay, with that edit I think I can piece together what you’re asking, “Why should good parents not be considered for adoption simply because they are in abnormal family situations, e.g. single, remarried, divorced, same sex, etc.”

I am not Catholic, nor do I run an adoption agency, but I’ll give my 2c with those caveats. There are two main reasons:

1. Adoption agencies run on limited resources, and there are limits to how effective an assessment can be. So certain baseline criteria are set to weed out potential adoptive parents who are more likely to not be proper parents. Single people, for example, are almost always not going to be as well situated to care for a child as a married couple would be, even if it is technically possible for a single person to be super amazing, it would be difficult for an adoption agency to really find out how much that is true. Similar things apply if you’re getting a loan from a bank, maybe you’re a super genius who will definitely be able to pay, but unless you have a certain amount of income or assets they won’t consider you because they don’t have time to consider everyone who wants money and they couldn’t really accurately tell the super geniuses from everyone else, and maybe the super genius isn’t as much as a super genius as they think they are if they can’t make much money.
2. There are the rights of the child to consider, and the Catholic Church believes it is important for children to have both a mother and a father for developmental purposes.

I’m sure there’s more but that is something, at least.

 

[prayerrider]

And if that is the case, why has a histrionic effort been made to call all of these arrangements “marriage”?

I think the histrionic effort reflects a desperate need for a stamp of legitimacy on something that, deep down, those making the effort know is illegitimate.

 

[Dakota111]

You do not seem to understand you have flogged your basketball player to death and hes on the roadside 50km back, dead and gone.
Let it go, dead and gone, lets move on.

If you are unwilling to dialogue with me directly re my question why should I continue trying to understand your abstract tracts?

If you are willing to address my question directly I am happy to engage with you further, otherwise its time to say God’s peace to you.

The point is why should nobody skillful parents not even be assessed simply because they are, in your view, in abnormal family situations…eg single, remarried, divorced, same sex etc etc.

 

[goout]

You do not seem to understand you have flogged your basketball player to death and hes on the roadside 50km back, dead and gone.
Let it go, dead and gone, lets move on.

If you are unwilling to dialogue we me directly re my question why should I continue trying to understand your abstract tracts?

If you are willing to address my question directly I am happy to engage with you further, otherwise its time to say God’s peace to you.

The point is why should nobody skillful parents not even be assessed simply because they are, in your view, in abnormal family situations…eg single, remarried, divorced, same sex etc etc.

See my last post.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Does the same apply in the inverse? Is the histrionic effort to end gay marriage reflecting a desperate need for a stamp of illegitimacy on something that, deep, down, those making the effort know is legitimate?

Principle of charity, brother.

 

[goout]

Does the same apply in the inverse? Is the histrionic effort to end gay marriage reflecting a desperate need for a stamp of illegitimacy on something that, deep, down, those making the effort know is legitimate?

Principle of charity, brother.

At it’s core, the effort is disturbing because it displays an incoherence and an inability to see reality as it is.
To be clear, I’m not talking about those good elements that all relationships have here. I’m talking about the equation of gay union with marriage of a man and woman, which is farcical.
It’s disturbing in it’s unreasonableness, it’s bald will to power at the expense of common sense and reason.
It’s alarming because it denies really basic human nature, and that should terrify anyone who knows some basic history. You have to look beyond sex at the underlying philosophy ( or lack thereof)

 

[Dakota111]

So certain baseline criteria are set to weed out potential adoptive parents who are more likely to not be proper parents. Single people, for example, are almost always not going to be as well situated to care for a child as a married couple would be, even if it is technically possible for a single person to be super amazing, it would be difficult for an adoption agency to really find out how much that is true

You raise a practical consideration which is fair enough.
However this topic is a moral theology one about principles so this legit observation is not salient to the speculative issues in question.
In any case I disagree with you even at a practical level. Youth courts in my country judge on these matters all the time. My best single friend formally received custody of his grandchild when his daughter went awol and got pregnant multiple times living rough.

 

[prayerrider]

No, it doesn’t apply in inverse. And no one here is arguing that same sex “marriage” is not a secular fait accompli.
Secular, same sex “marriage.” Not Holy Matrimony.
There ya go!

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Honestly I haven’t seen this. Gay marriage proponents, at least in my interactions with them, have argued usually for legal marriage equality ultimately on the basis of legal equality between the sexes. The marriage argument is ultimately definitional and so common sense and reason don’t really enter into it fundamentally per se. Gay marriage advocates define marriage as a committed relationship between two people, opponents define it as a committed relationship between a man and a woman. You have to get down into the details to really get at the potential problems, and then I think you leave the realm of ‘common sense’ and so can’t fault people as doing something they know is wrong.

 

[prayerrider]

I’m talking about the equation of gay union with marriage of a man and woman, which is farcical.

Farcical, yes. A parody. And it is no charity for those who adhere to God’s one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to pretend otherwise.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Youth courts in my country judge on these matters all the time. My best single friend formally received custody of his grandchild when his daughter went awol and got pregnant multiple times living rough.

That’s an interesting example, but I don’t think that catholic adoption agencies (is this about catholic adoption agencies? too lazy to check ) are situated to decide custody issues like that where there is an existing relationship. I’m thinking more about orphans who have no willing relatives to take them in. An existing relationship with the child is a serious consideration, I would think, and automatically catapult anyone to the top of the list of candidates.

 

[goout]

My experience is far different. I can’t think of a gay marriage proponent who will admit that marriage of a man and woman is unique in any comparative respect. The equality of gay marriage is asserted simply on a subjective and purely sentiment-based view of what love is.
“Any two people who love one another”
Love is great…but

At some point, we have to admit that assertions are not facts, they are just assertions. And if you lose the ability to reason in favor of assertions, you get chaos and violence.