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

[goout]

So have another go explaining your basketball example if you really believe it well represents the position of those who disagree with you.

Was there a reason you couldnt respond to my actual point:

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.

I did. Why does simple conversation prove difficult? That is really the core issue here, moral theology aside. Loss of the ability to reason. Voluntarism maybe.

You made an analogy that did not work, namely proposing a person with a set of attributes that qualifies that person for some recognition, yet the person was not recognized as such.

And I pointed out to you that your analogy doesn’t work, as the attributes composing gay union are not the same as those of the marriage of a man and woman. And so calling it the same doesn’t make it so. It’s just a bald assertion, or an act of willfullness without reason.

Your analogy doesn’t work.
What don’t you understand…

 

[prayerrider]

IVF is a mockery, yes. The Catholic Church condemns it. Just as the Church would utterly condemn any unholy conception via homosexual activity, were such an abomination ever even possible.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Can someone confirm that the catholic church dehumanizes people born through IVF in this way?

 

[prayerrider]

Straw man.
And, the title of these forums is Catholic Answers.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

To summarize:
You originally posted this in response to Young Sheldon hypothesizing about a future where people would be born through two female parents (I’m still not sure how he’s getting the idea that maleness will “die out” in humans when it hasn’t in any other animal…):

Satan no doubt just loves these exciting new mockeries of God’s creation.

To which I asked:

Maybe I"m misunderstanding this but do you also have this opinion of people born through in vitro fertilization? No humans are mockeries of God’s creation.

… wondering if you really meant that the people conceived in such a way would be “mockeries of God’s creation”

And you responded in the affirmative:

IVF is a mockery, yes. The Catholic Church condemns it. Just as the Church would utterly condemn any unholy conception via homosexual activity, were such an abomination ever even possible.

Which again dehumanizes people by saying they were born of an “unholy conception”.

I don’t see how this is a strawman.

I also realize that this is Catholic Answers, which is why I am asking if what you are saying is actually representative of Church teaching. It may well be but it is a quite radical teaching in my opinion, and I want to be sure. My church teaches that all people are creations of God, even those conceived through rape, so it is surprising.

 

[Paytheon]

The original sin was man decided he/she would define what’s Good and Evil over God’s definition of Good and Evil. Man has never been good at defining Good and Evil in the history of this world. God never told any of use to be progressive with commandments or laws…‘man’ does! God’s has always wanted to be present with man once again after the exile of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. If you truly have faith and salvation you would know the answer to the question you’re asking. Perhaps you should focus on the question of salvation first.

 

[prayerrider]

Yes and man has taken it upon himself to “improve” on God’s creation including procreation, gender, marriage and family.

 

[prayerrider]

As far as Catholic teachings, please feel free to search those out for yourself. As far as “dehumanizing,” that’s your attack word, which I haven’t used. You may cease and desist now. Thank you.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

I’m pretty sure I’m allowed to ask honest questions on this forum.

 

[pnewton]

Once so described, then all reasonable people would agree they are wrong.

That is not true. There are a whole group of people who think the have a right to sex, even if they have to take it by force. In the past, many considered the right to rape a fringe benefit of being a soldier. If you start trying to dismantle the example by an appeal to “all reasonable people” you run afoul of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

 

[prayerrider]

Who said it does?
Not to mention, IVF is not even remotely the subject of this thread. Feel free to start a new thread, though.

 

[sj1611]

I voted in favour of amending the Marriage Act in the Australian “plebescite” last year. My primary reason was that, as the Act is a piece of federal legislation, it was (and is) my view that the government should not legislate in such a way as may result in gay couples receiving a lower level of statutory recognition than straight couples.

That had nothing to do, in my mind, with the sacrament of Marriage as it is understood by the Church, which, in my opinion, is the exclusive province of the Church and not of the government. Indeed, I would argue that the statutory concept of “marriage”, which (in my country) may be dissolved without fault upon proof of 12 months separation, is qualitatively different from Marriage within the meaning of the gospels and as understood sacramentally within the Church.

 

[JimG]

Well, the state can decide to legalize any union and designate it as marriage. Same sex ‘marriage’ is inherently non marital, but that does not prevent the government from declaring it a marriage. The state could, by the same token declare any number of other unions to be legal marriage: polygamy, polyandry, man-boy unions, unions of close relatives, the possibilities are endless. Of course, the concept of marriage itself would become even more meaningless, as it has already become.

 

[sj1611]

I’m wondering whether you consider a civil marriage celebrated under the Act (by an administratively delegated statutory official) to be “marital” in the sense in which you use that term? Isn’t that simply a statutory construct with the label “marriage” given to it by the legislation? Is it the “intimate community of life and love […] established by the Creator and endowed by Him with its own proper laws”? If not, should we as Christians oppose gay couples’ entitlement to share in the legislative benefits of such a scheme?

I really struggle with this because I count some gay men amongst my friends and while I can see that their sexuality is something over which they had no control, I really cannot find fault with the Church teaching that it is fundamentally disordered.

I think I came upon the statutory/Church distinction as a way out of the dilemma. I’m still not convinced I’m right about that, but I really do struggle with this, as I said.

 

[prayerrider]

This is why I prefer the term “holy matrimony.” It emphasizes the Divine ordination and intention of marriage as between one biological man and one biological woman. And it draws a diametric contrast with the most unholy “marriage” of two people of the same sex.

 

[Thorolfr]

The state could, by the same token declare any number of other unions to be legal marriage: polygamy…

Why bring up polygamy? Surely, you’re not going to claim that polygamous marriages would not be real marriages? If that were true, that would mean that the marriages of Abraham, Jacob and many other Biblical patriarchs, as well as some Muslims aren’t real marriages.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Once so described, then all reasonable people would agree they are wrong.

That is not true. There are a whole group of people who think the have a right to sex, even if they have to take it by force. In the past, many considered the right to rape a fringe benefit of being a soldier. If you start trying to dismantle the example by an appeal to “all reasonable people” you run afoul of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

I think that in the circumstances you desribe, a reasonable person would be one who would answer ‘no’ to the question ‘would you like being raped?’ So simply ask the soldier, do you think it would be entirely reasonable for someone to rape your mother, sister and daughter as a fringe benefit? Show me someone who says yes to that question and I will show you an unreasonable man.

The Golden Rule covers most such circumstances.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Of course, the concept of marriage itself would become even more meaningless, as it has already become.

That is why the two should really be separated. If a couple want to be legally bound and spiritually bound, then they should get married by the law, and then get married in whatever religious ceremony their religion affords them. I am all for gay marriage. It is a shame it is conflated with people of different religions weighing in on what is a marriage and what isnt. You should have your legal marriage and your spiritual/ marriage. If a particular church doesn’t want to marry gay people, or people with disabilities, or people of different races or socio-economic classes, or people who don’t want children, then I guess they get coverage under their religion to descriminate that way, and it is fine.

This isn’t that hard of a problem to figure out. Instead of the religious arguing that this group or that group can’t marry, why doesn’t the Church get out of the business of conducting legal marriages.

 

[JimG]

Yes, the Church could simply get out of the business of certifying marriages as legal for the state. That still leaves the question of whether same sex marriages or other types of non traditional marriages are a benefit or a detriment to society.

I think that the state originally offered benefits to marriage because marriage was deemed a benefit to the nation. It provided stable families, raised and educated children, and was a source of social stability. No fault divorce weakened the value of marriage to the state. So have a number of other factors, including same sex marriage. If it’s just a matter of legal equality, why limit marriage at all? Let everyone decide for himself what marriage is, no matter the number or sex or age of the persons involved, and the state can bless it.

 

[QwertyGirl]

That still leaves the question of whether same sex marriages or other types of non traditional marriages are a benefit or a detriment to society.

The people decide that. It has already been decided. If you take the legal aspect out of religious marriage, then everyone is happy. Maybe not happy with the society they are living in. But they can complain about what an abomination it all is. Without religion in the conversation, they don’t really have a leg to stand on.