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

[Thorolfr]

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 relationships that same-sex couples have is still different from that between two siblings, a parent and a child, etc. It is closer to a heterosexual union than any of the others. Except for the fact that a heterosexual couple might be able to conceive children together, I don’t think that there is any other major difference. Same-sex couples do most of the same things that straight couples do. They own homes and cars together, have shared bank accounts, shared credit cards, spend most of their free time with each other. There is also a shared intimacy between same-sex couples, not only sexual, but also emotional, that most people don’t have even with their siblings or parents. And many younger same-sex couples do now raise children together (whether or not you think that this is good).

 

[JimG]

With heterosexual marriages, even sterile unions can be marital if sexual relations are possible. But same sex unions can never be marital because the parties are not sexually complementary. How could the Church approve a union as a marriage when the sexual aspect of it is considered to be intrinsically disordered?

 

[Beyond_Reason]

As for “why dont people just form some sort of communal arrangement”, our society isn’t set up for that. Try going to a large busy hospital to visit your partner of 30 years and tell them “hi I’m part of an anarcho-syndicalist commune with the patient wherein we have a set of legal arrangements approximating a marriage, can I see my partner?” and you will likely not get the desired response.

 

[MikeInVA]

The law reflects the will of the people.

Which law are you referring to? A Supreme Court decision is not a law; in fact the decision overturned the will of the people in several states who voted into law (in their state) that marriage is between one man and one woman.
What we currently have is a legal vacuum - there is no federal law that legalizes SSM, only a court decision where previously defined marriage were struck down. This is actually the same vacuum within which abortion operates - people act as if the absence of a law is a law in itself.

 

[goout]

It is closer to a heterosexual union than any of the others. Except for the fact that a heterosexual couple might be able to conceive children together, I don’t think that there is any other major difference.

Thank you for your honesty. You illustrate the logical end of it all: the bracketing of human existence and welfare.

Maybe if we keep pushing human nature and human flourishing to the exceptional margins, then…(fill in the blank, use your history book)

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

The law reflects the will of the people.

Which law are you referring to?

Law in general.

There was a suggestion that if enough people wish a position to be legally enforced then a specific law might be enacted which then makes it then a moral position.

That is not the case.

 

[PetraG]

They own homes and cars together, have shared bank accounts, shared credit cards, spend most of their free time with each other…

So do monks. (And please do not try to tell us that people committed to their religious communities do not have true intimacy between them that deserves to be regarded as the equal of that between homosexuals because those committed to monastic life are not having sex with each other…)

…many younger same-sex couples do now raise children together (whether or not you think that this is good)…

And many single parents also have children they purposefully planned from the very beginning to raise apart from at least one biological parent, and no, I don’t think that is good and have no idea why justice would demand that I would, even from a secular standpoint.

It is closer to a heterosexual union than any of the others. Except for the fact that a heterosexual couple might be able to conceive children together…

That’s an extraordinarily important “except”!! It’s how the human race is perpetuated.
You can say it is not my business that they have a relationship, but I don’t see
(a) how it became my business to give their relationship recognition exactly equal to a married couple and
(b) how, if their sex is not my business, they have some grounds to claim legal advantages that people cannot have if they do not have a sexual relationship.

If there is nothing about the sex between a man and a woman that is any different than the sex between two people of the same sex, I fail to see how it follows that a sexual relationship is closer than a relationship between people who don’t have sex. People make the case that some heterosexual couples do not have children, so childbearing is irrelevant. Well, sex is something that strangers and buy and sell, so the fact that some people who have sexual relationships also happen to be intimate is also irrelevant. People form special bonds over many shared experiences, like going to war together. That doesn’t make it all the equivalent of marriage.

The idea that people cannot see any difference between a relationship based on heterosexual acts and one based on homosexual acts betrays a willful disregard for the function of sex between humans.

Again, even from a purely secular stand-point, it is mind-boggling that someone could see no difference between a married couple and a homosexual couple but still thinks there is some huge difference between adults who commit to live together for life and share commitment of mutual care and charity and don’t have any sex at all.

 

[edwest]

Oh please. Anybody can see anybody in a hospital.

 

[MAGAtrump]

It being fundamentally disordered is good enough for me

Agreed…and for those who are accepting of things fundamentally disordered who are willing to jeopardize their salvation, so be it.

Thank you for your courage in telling it the way it is!

 

[PetraG]

Agreed…and for those who are accepting of things fundamentally disordered who are willing to jeopardize their salvation, so be it.

Thank you for your courage in telling it the way it is!

That is just it. I think we have a moral duty to oppose the falsehood that not only is there nothing disordered about homosexual acts but that those acts are the basis for making a relationship between two adults the exact equivalent of a marital relationship.
We understand the difference and we understand the disordered thinking that is encouraged if we pretend there isn’t one. No, we can’t just pretend this is a matter of personal preference and not a matter of the welfare of our fellow human beings.
This is easily seen in other things we hold to be taboo. There is no personal right to have this one discarded.

 

[Thorolfr]

If there is nothing about the sex between a man and a woman that is any different than the sex between two people of the same sex, I fail to see how it follows that a sexual relationship is closer than a relationship between people who don’t have sex. People make the case that some heterosexual couples do not have children, so childbearing is irrelevant. Well, sex is something that strangers and buy and sell, so the fact that some people who have sexual relationships also happen to be intimate is also irrelevant. People form special bonds over many shared experiences, like going to war together. That doesn’t make it all the equivalent of marriage.

The idea that people cannot see any difference between a relationship based on heterosexual acts and one based on homosexual acts betrays a willful disregard for the function of sex between humans.

The function of sex is not only to produce children. As I pointed out before, “there is also a shared intimacy between same-sex couples, not only sexual, but also emotional, that most people don’t have even with their siblings or parents.” A lot of that intimacy comes when someone has sex with someone they love. It is not the same as having sex with a stranger. People here in CAF talk about sex between married couples being unitive and procreative, well, I think that same-sex couples can achieve that unitive aspect as well.

 

[Thorolfr]

Oh please. Anybody can see anybody in a hospital.

Actually that’s not true. I recently went to see my father who was being prepared for surgery, and only family members were allowed. In the past, biological families of gay people have prevented their same-sex partners from seeing them in the hospital. If the sick person is unconscious for example, the biological family get’s to decide who has access if there is no prior document by the hospitalized person allowing others to have access.

 

[PetraG]

The function of sex is not only to produce children. As I pointed out before, “there is also a shared intimacy between same-sex couples, not only sexual, but also emotional, that most people don’t have even with their siblings or parents.” A lot of that intimacy comes when someone has sex with someone they love. It is not the same as having sex with a stranger. People here in CAF talk about sex between married couples being unitive and procreative, well, I think that same-sex couples can achieve that unitive aspect as well.

There is also shared sex between people who don’t have the emotional intimacy they have with their pets.

If the unitive meaning of heterosexual sex has no connection to the procreative aspect, because people can choose to ignore it, then the meaning of sex in general has no connection to the emotional aspect. After all, either the unitive aspect or the emotional import can be missing by the choice of the partners. If one makes no difference because it is sometimes absent, then the other makes no difference because it is sometimes absent.

More to the point, however, it is society’s care for children that argues in favor of extending societal recognition of relationships that can produce children and therefore affect issues of inheritance, not to mention the well-being of members of our citizenry who are both vulnerable and yet whose well-being is vital for our future.

Honestly, I don’t think treating their parents’ relationship decisions as having nothing to do with the children has served the children all that well.

When procreation is divorced from marriage, I’d argue that society’s interest in it is reduced to the interest due to adults in relationships of mutual care. The sexual consort becomes an entirely private matter and utterly irrelevant to whether or not the relationship has benefits to society that make it worthy of status and legal encouragements.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

Thorolfr:

It is closer to a heterosexual union than any of the others. Except for the fact that a heterosexual couple might be able to conceive children together, I don’t think that there is any other major difference.

Thank you for your honesty. You illustrate the logical end of it all: the bracketing of human existence and welfare.

Maybe if we keep pushing human nature and human flourishing to the exceptional margins, then…(fill in the blank, use your history book)

This is my biggest question, what is best for human flourishing. Are gay people better off with or without gay marriage from a physical, legal, secular perspective. Absent the theological concerns, is it better for a gay person to be ‘alone’ their entire life or to be able to marry someone?

I know all kinds of gay people, some clearly very flingy and not into a serious relationship, but others who have clearly benefited from gay marriage. Hard for me to deny freedom if a significant number of people seem to be benefitting.

 

[goout]

goout:

Thorolfr:

It is closer to a heterosexual union than any of the others. Except for the fact that a heterosexual couple might be able to conceive children together, I don’t think that there is any other major difference.

Thank you for your honesty. You illustrate the logical end of it all: the bracketing of human existence and welfare.

Maybe if we keep pushing human nature and human flourishing to the exceptional margins, then…(fill in the blank, use your history book)

This is my biggest question, what is best for human flourishing. Are gay people better off with or without gay marriage from a physical, legal, secular perspective. Absent the theological concerns, is it better for a gay person to be ‘alone’ their entire life or to be able to marry someone?

I know all kinds of gay people, some clearly very flingy and not into a serious relationship, but others who have clearly benefited from gay marriage. Hard for me to deny freedom if a significant number of people seem to be benefitting.

Not good for anyone to be alone. We are made for relationship.

 

[Thorolfr]

There is also shared sex between people who don’t have the emotional intimacy they have with their pets.

If the unitive meaning of heterosexual sex has no connection to the procreative aspect, because people can choose to ignore it, then the meaning of sex in general has no connection to the emotional aspect. After all, either the unitive aspect or the emotional import can be missing by the choice of the partners. If one makes no difference because it is sometimes absent, then the other makes no difference because it is sometimes absent.

There are even straight married couples who have conceived children who have more emotional intimacy with their pets than what they do with their spouses and probably treat their pets better than their own children. There are lots of bad heterosexual marriages and bad heterosexual parents and yet two gay men who actually love each other and would be good parents are told that they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.

 

[GospelOfMatthew]

I think sometimes friendships can be conflated when sex is involved. So while a husband and wife have a very in-depth friendship and of course a love built around Jesus loving the Church, homosexual individuals actually have a benefit here. They have the ability to form truly genuine relationships with multiple people.

How many married people here have truly in-depth friendships with multiple people outside their spouse? I mean truly in-depth. It is a hard thing for a married couple to do, especially with the responsibilities of being married and having a family.

Homosexual individuals can and often do have many in-depth friendships. We are all lonely whether hetero or homosexual but we answer this with Christ in our lives and friendships. I think we need to stress this point. Too many homosexuals and those with SSA think there is no place for them in the Church and in society as a Catholic. Wrong! These people can provide a model for what true Christ-centered relationships are, true chaste and respectful relationships. This is truly the Gospel

 

[Thorolfr]

Not good for anyone to be alone. We are made for relationship.

I agree. And I’ve been much better off being in a relationship with my same-sex partner for the last 20 years than being alone. In fact, I don’t think that I could live alone.

 

[Beyond_Reason]

I get where you’re coming from but marriage isn’t really an impediment to friendship with multiple people. Personality is the more limiting factor. Some people have lots of close friends, some people have a few good friends, some just have one good friend outside their marriage. Some people are very reluctant to really open up to anyone and so the only true friendship they have is with their spouse who they open up to through the intimacy of that relationship.

 

[Thorolfr]

I think sometimes friendships can be conflated when sex is involved. So while a husband and wife have a very in-depth friendship and of course a love built around Jesus loving the Church, homosexual individuals actually have a benefit here. They have the ability to form truly genuine relationships with multiple people.

How many married people here have truly in-depth friendships with multiple people outside their spouse? I mean truly in-depth. It is a hard thing for a married couple to do, especially with the responsibilities of being married and having a family.

Homosexual individuals can and often do have many in-depth friendships.

I don’t think that gay people have any special ability to form in-depth friendships. That is more a function of personality or other factors, not sexual orientation. If someone is gay and living a chaste life, but is introverted, he’ll still have a difficult time forming multiple in-depth friendships.