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

[goout]

goout:

Ok cool.
I want my 8 mil for being a 7 foot tall pro basketball player. I am that.
I am equal. Unique but equal as you say.
Don’t be a bigot, I deserve the same benefits.

Marriage wasn’t extended to same-sex couples because one day a few people said that it should be. It took decades of work and activism by gay men and lesbians to convince their fellow citizens that they deserved the right to marry. By the time the Supreme Court made its ruling, more than half of Americans supported it. So, if you think that people like you deserve to get paid the same as pro basketball players, you’re perfectly free to convince the country of this.

Ok, just so I understand you that it’s a matter of politics, not reason. As long as I have the numbers to make law, that makes the issue moral. Now I know where you are coming from.

You know that politics is about numbers and basically, force, right? Whatever a majority will accepts, that’s cool. Except when things like…lynching for instance, are accepted, then what?

When laws are enacted that ignore self evident human nature, then what?
Where do you draw the line at political power?

 

[QwertyGirl]

And in the same breath say that it really doesn’t matter, because the various types of unions are “equal”, which is to say, the same

Where did you get that equal means same?

 

[Thorolfr]

goout:

And in the same breath say that it really doesn’t matter, because the various types of unions are “equal”, which is to say, the same

Where did you get that equal means same?

I’ve been wondering about that, too. The Declaration of Independence says that “all men are created equal,” but, of course, that doesn’t mean that all “men” are the “same,” especially since that founding principle of our democracy has been extended to include women and black people and people of Asian background and now LGBT people. But even though all those people are considered equal before the law, that doesn’t mean that they are all “the same”.

 

[QwertyGirl]

I’ve been wondering about that, too. The Declaration of Independence says that “all men are created equal,” but, of course, that doesn’t mean that all “men” are the “same,” especially since that founding principle of our democracy has been extended to include women and black people and people of Asian background and now LGBT people. But even though all those people are considered equal before the law, that does mean that they are all “the same”.

Yes, and also take into consideration how often (on this very forum) we read posts declaring that men and women ARE equal, they just aren’t the same.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok, just so I understand you that it’s a matter of politics, not reason. As long as I have the numbers to make law, that makes the issue moral. Now I know where you are coming from.

The law reflects the will of the people. But it does not define morality. And nobody has suggested that and nobody has given any indication that they believe that. In fact, the law can contradict what we personally feel to be moral. It can give freedom where you might personally desire restrictions. And it can restrict freedom when we might believe it should not interfere with our personal preferences.

The law doesn’t make a call on whether SSM is moral or not. It simply defines, on the assumption that it exists, what it means within a legal framework and what rights it confers on those participating in that arrangement.

 

[Thorolfr]

Sexuality is an integral part of this communication of the self. Sexuality uniquely expresses an attribute and faculty of a human being. And so being fully human means to communicate and employ the physical self in a well ordered way. (this very thing informs all of social justice…human beings objectively have a stomach and need food. We don’t neglect hungry human beings by saying “oh well, he is almost dead anyway”. Same logic applies to your question).

Proper communication through the body properly orders one’s life. Results are another matter. My wife and I can’t conceive either. But the act is ordered to and respects the way human beings are made. By analogy, buttering my toast with a hammer might get the butter spread somehow, but it’s a misuse of the thing. The very misuse of the thing is a deception. The misuse of a thing lies about it’s purpose, it’s meaning, it’s very existence. (Remember, we said the body speaks a language?)

Sexuality is not just about results. That’s utilitarianism, and the Church is not about the utility of human beings, but about being fully human, being well ordered, living in honest reciprocal relationship with others.

You make a compelling case for how important sexuality is for humans, being “an integral part of this communication of the self” and a kind of “language” of the body. But gay men and lesbians are told that they are not allowed to communicate through this integral part of themselves and speak this language of the body. Instead, they are expected to remain silent because it is claimed that there is only one acceptable dialect of this language of the body which is vaginal intercourse within marriage. If you don’t speak that dialect, then you must remain silent. That would be like saying that everyone in the world must speak English because speaking French, for example, would be an abomination.

 

[goout]

goout:

And in the same breath say that it really doesn’t matter, because the various types of unions are “equal”, which is to say, the same

Where did you get that equal means same?

Exactly. That’s the question YOU need to answer.
Lack of differentiation.
(without which science is err…impossible)

 

[goout]

goout:

Sexuality is an integral part of this communication of the self. Sexuality uniquely expresses an attribute and faculty of a human being. And so being fully human means to communicate and employ the physical self in a well ordered way. (this very thing informs all of social justice…human beings objectively have a stomach and need food. We don’t neglect hungry human beings by saying “oh well, he is almost dead anyway”. Same logic applies to your question).

Proper communication through the body properly orders one’s life. Results are another matter. My wife and I can’t conceive either. But the act is ordered to and respects the way human beings are made. By analogy, buttering my toast with a hammer might get the butter spread somehow, but it’s a misuse of the thing. The very misuse of the thing is a deception. The misuse of a thing lies about it’s purpose, it’s meaning, it’s very existence. (Remember, we said the body speaks a language?)

Sexuality is not just about results. That’s utilitarianism, and the Church is not about the utility of human beings, but about being fully human, being well ordered, living in honest reciprocal relationship with others.

You make a compelling case for how important sexuality is for humans, being “an integral part of this communication of the self” and a kind of “language” of the body. But gay men and lesbians are told that they are not allowed to communicate through this integral part of themselves and speak this language of the body. Instead, they are expected to remain silent because it is claimed that there is only one acceptable dialect of this language of the body which is vaginal intercourse within marriage. If you don’t speak that dialect, then you must remain silent. That would be like saying that everyone in the world must speak English because speaking French, for example, would be an abomination.

The human body speaks, it doesn’t need interpretation. The fact that a man and woman are

1. differentiated sexually
   and at the same time
2. uniquely complementary

says something unique.
A mirror is useful here, and a basic observation of biology, ie…how human beings objectively work. How we come to be. Many people think this is tired medieval Christian nonsense, but in fact it is simply science. Oddly enough our supposed age of reason is wildly superstitious and anti-science.
The body of human beings speaks to that, and points to the complementarity of a man and a woman as a unique union.

 

[goout]

Thorolfr:

I’ve been wondering about that, too. The Declaration of Independence says that “all men are created equal,” but, of course, that doesn’t mean that all “men” are the “same,” especially since that founding principle of our democracy has been extended to include women and black people and people of Asian background and now LGBT people. But even though all those people are considered equal before the law, that does mean that they are all “the same”.

Yes, and also take into consideration how often (on this very forum) we read posts declaring that men and women ARE equal, they just aren’t the same.

it is tragic that this is so difficult.

Equality is due every person. Equal protection under the law. Equal access to food, housing, employment.

That doesn’t make us the same.
Equal is not “the same”. The gay marriage agenda proposes sameness, and the denial of this attempt is laughable. Or why else are we here, if not to argue that gay unions are just like marriage?
(of course, now we get into the nonsensical parsing of words like “marriage” “equal” and “same” and “unique”, and that parsing is the sign of a dead argument that must use force and deception to make it’s point.

To quote Bill Clinton: “depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is.” Well, thank you Bill for the laugh. We know you don’t really believe the meaning of the word is up for grabs, but when you had nothing left, and reason was not going to win the day, you said something completely audacious. And kudos to you for breaking new territory.

 

[Thorolfr]

None of what you’ve said explains why all the legal protections and benefits once available only to heterosexual couples shouldn’t be open to same-sex couples if society thinks that this is appropriate.

 

[goout]

None of what you’ve said explains why all the legal protections and benefits once available only to heterosexual couples shouldn’t be open to same-sex couples if society thinks that this is appropriate.

BECAUSE MARRIED COUPLES UNIQUELY GIVE HUMANITY IT’S EXISTENCE. NO OTHER TYPE OF UNION DOES THAT.
AND THE EXISTENCE AND FLOURISHING OF HUMAN BEINGS IS SOMETHING OF PREEMINENT VALUE.
AND SO PUBLIC OPINION IS NICE, BUT DOESN’T DETERMINE OBJECTIVE HUMAN VALUES.

Really, are you sure none of what I’ve said doesn’t already explain this? I thought I had already done that. At least once.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

None of what you’ve said explains why all the legal protections and benefits once available only to heterosexual couples shouldn’t be open to same-sex couples if society thinks that this is appropriate.

BECAUSE MARRIED COUPLES UNIQUELY GIVE HUMANITY IT’S EXISTENCE. NO OTHER TYPE OF UNION DOES THAT.
AND THE EXISTENCE AND FLOURISHING OF HUMAN BEINGS IS SOMETHING OF PREEMINENT VALUE.
AND SO PUBLIC OPINION IS NICE, BUT DOESN’T DETERMINE OBJECTIVE HUMAN VALUES.

Really, are you sure none of what I’ve said doesn’t already explain this? I thought I had already done that. At least once.

There is nothing objective about the notion that only one kind of couple deserves to get various kinds of tax and inheritance benefits, the ability to extend health insurance to each other, etc. The Catholic Church has opposed allowing any of these benefits to be given even under other names such as “domestic partnership.”

 

[Bradskii]

BECAUSE MARRIED COUPLES UNIQUELY GIVE HUMANITY IT’S EXISTENCE. NO OTHER TYPE OF UNION DOES THAT.

But that’s not true and you know it. It’s only couples who can and want to procreate. Would it be OK to tell a couple in their seventies who wanted to get married: ‘Hey, I hope you undertstand that you have to have vaginal intercourse before this marriage can be considered authentic. Otherwise, you know, it won’t be contributing to the existence of humanity’.

 

[Dakota111]

I think I’ve sufficiently clarified the issue

You have now confused me.
You called me out directly, as it were, so it is natural justice that I seek you to explain yourself directly to me rather than do an impersonal hit and run thing.
Its a Christian forum my brother.

I disagree with your position about “it is commonly known the Church used to teach…” as you have not cited any source while I have cited and quoted the Baltimore Catechism, which is usually what’s relied on when people make “The Church used to teach” arguments. Unless you have a source for all this “commonly known the Church used to teach” then you’re basically posting your personal opinion here and attributing it to the Church. I posted in order to correct this and show what the Church ACTUALLY 'used to teach" not this “common knowledge” (based on your opinion) stuff.

I assumed average skilled chefs were in this hot kitchen and the basics didnt need to be proven. My apologies.

So here you are, I simply paraphrased 1917 Canon Law. Around #1005 or thereabouts I believe.

Is this gap in common, oldies knowledge a US thing? But then I didnt grow up with Baltimore which seems to have failed you on this one.

If you can directly explain to me what I said wrong above that provoked you I would be grateful.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Thanks, this helps me understand that position a lot.

 

[PetraG]

People with SSA have fought for a type of liberty, on the one hand, and a type of legal protection, on the other hand. They probably deserve both, within the bounds of morality.

For a follower of Christ, a disciple, there is always the challenge to love our neighbor, even our enemy. None of us likes change, and this adjustment is a difficult one.

“Within the bounds of morality” is the sticking point. It is not unconstitutional for a society to have moral boundaries having to do with sexuality. It was never intended, and it isn’t to be found in the constitution that society cannot have those boundaries in place. Those boundaries can take the form either of those things that society chooses to penalize or criminalize and those things that society refrains from encouraging or denies recognition.

If we love our neighbor, we have to stand up for a realistic view of the human person. That view cannot be reconciled with wishful thinking that tries to make homosexuality and the implication of a relationship formed around homosexual acts into the equivalent of heterosexuality and the implications that follow from a relationship formed around heterosexual acts. The “niceness” of the people involved or their right to be viewed as human beings with value doesn’t change that.

I am very tired of credulous arguments that pretend not to be able to discern any meaningful difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality or that pretends that there is no meaningful difference. Honestly, I don’t know how anybody makes these arguments with a straight face.

 

[PetraG]

None of what you’ve said explains why all the legal protections and benefits once available only to heterosexual couples shouldn’t be open to same-sex couples if society thinks that this is appropriate.

Why should society think it is appropriate?

Honestly, if society wants to give some recognition to any congregation of adults who are in a relationship of mutual self-care but are not married, OK. I have no idea, however, what two homosexuals have to offer society that two people with no sexual relationship at all don’t have. There isn’t any. So fine: offer a range of benefits for adults who cannot marry so they can enter into a contract of mutual self-care. Fine. Based on Archbishop Vlazny’s statements when same-sex “marriage” was being debated in Oregon, I don’t think Church has any problem with that.

The Church does obviously have a problem with giving one pair of adults recognition or encouragement for their relationship because it is based on a disordered sexual relationship rather than no sexual relationship at all.

I also do not know why society ought to be shouted down for daring to recognize that mothers and fathers are not interchangeable and that only a heterosexual couple can head up a home that has both a mother and a father in it. No, we’re supposed to believe that a parent is a parent is a parent and that our gender makes no difference whatsoever. Again: who really believes that?

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Ive seen this line of reasoning a lot. My question is why something would have to be the same as marriage in every way in order for it to deserve recognition. One could argue that a procreative marriage with two fertile couples and lots of biological kids is significantly different from a ‘sterile’ marriage with no kids or adopted kids because it is producing new people, but we lump those relationships together. So not everything we call a true marriage is procreative. And I think this line about sterile/impotent is a little weak. Catholics point to biblical miracles as evidence that sterile sex is “open to procreation” but that seems pretty flimsy to me.

I think your best bet is to go along the lines of natural male/female complimentariness. But men and women are more and more seen as identical rather than equal and complimentary, and that I think is the root of all this.

 

[PetraG]

My question is why something would have to be the same as marriage in every way in order for it to deserve recognition.

My question is why something would have to be based on a sexual relationship to be deemed an adult relationship of mutual care.

Homosexuals have not made the case that their sexual relationship is in any way necessary for their relationship to have the value they say it offers society. Heterosexual relationships sometimes result in the birth of children. Homosexual consort never does.

Giving adults who cannot enter into a marriage but nevertheless have a committed relationship of mutual care some kind of legal support and recognition is one thing. Trying to make homosexuality the equivalent of heterosexuality is something else again. It is based on fantastic thinking, unbelievable thinking, unless the thinking is to reduce marriage to a relationship in which the sexual consort is entirely irrelevant.

Honestly, why couldn’t people who cannot marry have legally-recognized multi-member committed relationship? Again, I can’t think of a reason. Convents and monasteries have been serving societies from just these kinds of relationships for centuries. Sexual consort is not a necessary feature when there is no procreation involved.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Sterile heterosexual relationships never result in the birth of children, and yet we consider those relationships worth recognition. You see the problem?

All that stuff from goouts post about human sexual expression being a vital part of romantic committed relationships in sterile married couples can be easily modified to apply to homosexual couples. The only difference is what’s happening with the organs, and is that enough of a basis for a legal distinction?

And marriage isn’t necessary for the birth of children. Plenty of unmarried people have kids.