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

[Beyond_Reason]

“Principle of Charity” meaning don’t apply malice to people, assume they are arguing in good faith unless you have very good reason to believe otherwise. I believe the phrase is “Only God knows what’s in their hearts”, and something about judge not lest ye be judged.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

This has to be the weakest argument available. The number of new lives brought into the world doesn’t change depending on whether gay people get married. Preventing them from getting married is not going to help the birth rate. It just seems to be a selfishly based punishment: ‘You can’t have children, therefore those of us who can have decided that you shouldn’t be allowed to get married’.

If the argument stood in any way, then any couple who had decided not to have children should not be allowed to marry either. And close to 20% of women up to the age of 45 in the UK are, and quite possibly will remain, childless.

‘…just under one in five British women currently reaching age 45 with no biological children of her own.’
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-44667-7_3

How dare they use marriage as some sort of child-free arrangement!

 

[pnewton]

The Golden Rule covers most such circumstances.

If that is something you except, perhaps the difference is in the definition of moral relativism you are using.

 

[Bradskii]

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

I literally do not know anyone who didn’t get married because they loved their partner and wanted to spend the rest of their lives together. I mean literally. Including my parents, my in-laws, my kids, our friends…everyone. And that includes gay friends and relatives.

 

[prayerrider]

Some may sincerely believe there is something holy about same sex “marriage.” If so, they are in grave error, and perhaps under diabolical influence. The devil loves to twist God’s truth and convince people that lies are truth. That is nothing new.
There is no charity in pretending there is anything about same sex “marriage” that equates with Holy Matrimony. They are, in fact, opposites.

 

[edwest]

It can’t be addressed. It boils down to “we want what we want” regardless of arguments to the contrary. Yes, the physical reality of our bodies is denied.

 

[goout]

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.

This has to be the weakest argument available. The number of new lives brought into the world doesn’t change depending on whether gay people get married.

Brad
I didn’t say that.

Are you replying to someone else?

 

[goout]

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

I literally do not know anyone who didn’t get married because they loved their partner and wanted to spend the rest of their lives together. I mean literally. Including my parents, my in-laws, my kids, our friends…everyone. And that includes gay friends and relatives.

Once again, whose post are you intending to respond to?
I certainly do not dispute what you said above.

Are you that bad at quoting, are do you resort to straw men by reflex?

 

[QwertyGirl]

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.

The reality is that the word “Marriage” is defined differently by different people. Let the government decide the legalities of it. Let the religious organizations decide their interpretation of what it is with regards to the other things.

These things should be separate. Government marriage. Religious marriage. The religious marriage should be a layer on top of the government marriage, if the married parties so desire.

Easy, peasy. No histrionics.

 

[goout]

prayerrider:

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.

The reality is that the word “Marriage” is defined differently by different people. Let the government decide the legalities of it. Let the religious organizations decide their interpretation of what it is with regards to the other things.

These things should be separate. Government marriage. Religious marriage. The religious marriage should be a layer on top of the government marriage, if the married parties so desire.

Easy, peasy. No histrionics.

Yea, no histrionics, except when it comes to cake baking, then we must have histrionics.

 

[prayerrider]

The government definition of marriage already opposes God’s definition of marriage. The former reflects the profane, the latter the sacred. Whatever further distortions the government makes to the definition of marriage won’t change this fundamental opposition. If the government wants to stop issuing marriage licenses that’s okay by me. Such documents are already meaningless in anything but an economic sense, anyway.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Not for me. I don’t deal with vendors who discriminate based on sexual orientation. I move on and give my money to someone who doesn’t do that.

 

[goout]

Ironically I have a retail business also. And I do not discriminate in the performance of my services on any basis whatsoever.
But the products and services I offer are neutral in this regard so I am not asked to violate my beliefs. If I was pressured to do that I would decline, as I hope you would.
And, if I were a cake baker you didn’t frequent for these reasons I would respect your decision with no hard feelings whatsoever.

This is really not the point tho…
the point is
your assertion that an easy separation is proposed between civil and sacramental marriage is not really so. What is proposed is a much more thorough redefining and re-legislating of a basic facet of human nature, to the point that a baker who affirms a common sense belief is forced out of the sanctuary you imagine.

 

[QwertyGirl]

What is proposed is a much more thorough redefining and re-legislating a basic face of human nature, to the point that a baker who affirms a common sense belief is forced out of the sanctuary you imagine.

Discrimination is discrimination. Perhaps it is done for a valid reason, perhaps not. If a Catholic baker can’t in good conscience bake a cake for someone because it is for a gay wedding, that is discrimination. But it is also not a problem for me because I wouldn’t want someone who is has that kind of a hang up over gay marriage making my cake anyway. That is just how the world works. I don’t expect any vendor to endorse everything I do. I move on to the next.

I guess I am more of a live and let live person then the average person.

Where you run into trouble is when you have, say, a hotelier refusing to rent a hotel room to a couple who is suspected of being gay. That isn’t OK, because suspicions are not truths. If I say “I want a gay wedding cake” (whatever that is), then OK if the baker doesn’t want to do it. If I say “I need a room for the night” and the hotelier sees I have a partner with me, then NOT OK to deny the room rental.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

 

[Thorolfr]

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”?

One reason that gay people have not been satisfied with legal arrangements with other names such as “domestic partnership” instead of “marriage” is because they didn’t have all the rights associated with marriage and, in fact, the Catholic Church has even opposed things like “domestic partnerships” if they are given legal recognition because that, too, would seem to show approval for homosexuality. Why settle for less when some people think you don’t even deserve that? Here’s what Bishop Paul S. Loverde had to say in 2000:

We should not fail to understand the effect that civil laws have in shaping and forming the conscience. A common attitude argues that actions which are legally protected are for that reason morally right — witness the mindset that views abortion as a “right” merely because this terrible act enjoys legal protection.

The same mindset would, I believe, inevitably follow upon the enactment of “domestic partnership” legislation. The status of cohabiting couples, be they heterosexual or homosexual, would be considered by many in our society, on the moral and social levels, to have been elevated by such legislation to the equivalent of marriage. Would our young people not be affected by this? Would such legislation not contribute further to the already serious loss of respect for and commitment to marriage and family life? Would the view that human sexuality can be given any meaning the individual chooses to give it not be further reinforced?

Some have argued that granting health insurance benefits to domestic partners is a pro-life issue. This is a false argument. True, the Catholic Church has always seen health care as a fundamental act of charity, intrinsically bound up with the Gospel itself. True, the Church has consistently made known its support for adequate health care coverage for everyone. In 1993, in fact, the bishops of the United States stated clearly and directly, “Every person has a right to adequate health care.”

If everyone has a right to adequate and affordable health care and coverage, however, it does not follow that society should extend its preferential attitude toward marriage to non-married sexual unions.

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2582

So, the Catholic Church was even opposed to gay people in legal “domestic partnerships” being able to add their domestic partners to their health insurance. Fortunately, because they had passed domestic partnership legislation in the city where I lived, I was able to get health insurance through my partner.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

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.

This has to be the weakest argument available. The number of new lives brought into the world doesn’t change depending on whether gay people get married.

Brad
I didn’t say that.

Are you replying to someone else?

I am quoing you directly:

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.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

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

I literally do not know anyone who didn’t get married because they loved their partner and wanted to spend the rest of their lives together. I mean literally. Including my parents, my in-laws, my kids, our friends…everyone. And that includes gay friends and relatives.

Once again, whose post are you intending to respond to?
I certainly do not dispute what you said above.

Are you that bad at quoting, are do you resort to straw men by reflex?

You say that marriage for proponents of SSM is simply based on love. I am pointing out that I literally know no-one, straight, gay, young, old, conservative, liberal, atheist, religious, who wasn’t married for that specific reason.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Thorolfr]

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.

And for gay people, the rights and benefits they receive through civil marriage are also something of value for them.

There are many tax benefits, especially when it comes to transferring property from one spouse to another when one of them dies. Also, in California, only married spouses can prevent their property from being reassessed when one of them dies. If two gay men own a house together and they aren’t married, when one of them dies, the property will be reassessed and the survivor would have to pay much higher property taxes. If two people are married and one dies, the survivor can receive their spouse’s Social Security if it is higher than their own. If two people are married and one spouse doesn’t work, the non-working spouse can receive spousal benefits, including Medicare, through the Social Security record of the working spouse. If someone dies without a will, their spouse will automatically inherit from them. That’s just some of the benefits.

 

[goout]

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.

And for gay people, the rights and benefits they receive through civil marriage are also something of value for them.

Understood. All of life is a balancing act. Much of it rests on being able to see life as a “both and”. Prudential judgment asks us to evaluate all of these things and prioritize them. We all have wants and needs and want what is due us.

At the same time, if you can’t recognize basic human nature, how can you have a just society?
Nazi Germany proposed many good things for the german people. Unfortunately they lost their sense of basic human nature, and what results is force. The loss of reason in favor of the bald assertion of rights.

 

[QwertyGirl]

At the same time, if you can’t recognize basic human nature, how can you have a just society?

Basic human nature is to love. That is what couples do. They love.