What makes 'gay' wrong?

[wapsi]

The CDF document claims that “grave detriment to the common good” will result from the legal recognition of same-sex civil unions, but it presents no empirical evidence that that is the case.

Yes, that is true. I think their statement grew out of the Church’s natural law theory, particularly the nature of woman and man.

But the point I was trying to make is that the Catholic Church does oppose civil unions, even in a secular setting.

 

[Newbie2]

From an evolutionary perspective, no body parts were designed with a given function in mind. We came about as a result of random mutations. Those that had mutations that made them more likely to reproduce were more likely to pass on their genes. None of our body parts were designed for any particular purpose. And there are plenty of cases in evolution where one thing that was originally beneficial in one way later evolved so that it was used in some other way (such as the bacterial flagellum). You are falsely attributing purpose to a process that is not driven by purpose. Now you may disagree with this account of how we evolved from a theological perspective, but that’s essentially the secular view of evolution.

If it changes anything, let’s say that it’s possible that humans have evolved to have a separate reproductive system and a separate gastrointestional system. Whether or not evolution occured or to what extent, such evolution has dictated that the two systems be completely separate, not dual function like reptiles and birds (at least at the terminal end). Seems you have helped advance the argument that evolution does not favor gay sex. Thank you for proving my point from an evolutionist perspective.

Again, evolutionarily speaking, there was no design. But aside from that, there are plenty of ways we use our bodies differently than what they were “designed” to do. For example, the human eyes were not “designed” to read from a computer screen (and there can be serious problems for those who use a computer a lot). But I don’t think that’s a good reason to say that it is wrong to use a computer.

Again, you prove my point. Doing something that we know is harmful; looking at a computer screen “a lot” damages the eyes. So we shouldn’t look at computer screens “a lot” if we don’t want to adversely affect our eyes. Gay sex is harmful to certain parts of the anatomy. It follows that we humans shouldn’t participate in gay sex if we want to preserve the normal function of those parts of our anatomy. That is my point in responding in part to the OP. Thanks for supporting my argument.

 

[Thales]

Wow, it looks like judging the moral character of something based on it’s occurrence, or lack thereof, in nature doesn’t make much sense. In fact, whether something is “natural” or not pretty much has nothing to do with whether it’s moral or not.

I agree with you. The occurance of behavior by animals in nature is definitely not an indicator of moral goodness or evil. That an action or behavior increases pain, suffering, or ill-will to others is a determining factor of morality. Based on many studies homosexual behavior does these things, that is why it is antithetical to the thriving of human society.

I would say homosexual behavior is a perversion of right sexual conduct, not “natural instinct”.

 

[newbetx]

I would find better words than the ones I am going to use because some of them have bad connotations, but I am using them strictly in accordance with their definition.

1. Gay sex is a perversion of the natural instinct. Now, then some people say “fruit flies and manatees have gay sex, so therefore it is natural.” To that I reply “Chimpanzees wage war on other family groups and practice cannibalism, does that make it ok for humans?”
2. Marriage is not simply about love. Homosexual activists would like to have you believe that, but marriage is more like a business contract that is there to create a family and hold it together. In every society marriage has been about the family. Gay marriage does not allow for a natural family. Why do you think the divorce rates for people with arranged marriages are so low?
3. Love does not validate anything! That sounds odd I know, but the presence of love is not enough to justify the changing of an age-old structure because it would give some people the warm-fuzzies. Don’t tear down a fence unless you know why it was put there…

I am very sorry, this post seems horribly inadequate. My brain is not working at the moment. I’ll think and pray for a bit and maybe come up with something better…

No need to apoligize. This whole thing takes a good deal of time to explain. It’s not paragraph or single quote from the bible, for sure.

For those that chose not to follow God, there is little we CAN tell them. For they listen to nothing but their desires. We can explain our faith, and it’s not simple. But if they only see humans as an animal, expecting them to act differently or believe differently is impossible.

The purpose of marriage is to create a family. Biological, if the couple is able. Marriage doesn’t justify sex, but it is a reserved function for marriage.

What gays want isn’t what marriage was created for, but what married people enjoy. Certain legal rights. There are other ways to get these rights, but it is very cumbersome and the documentation can be ignored. There is a bias, still. A “marriage” solves thes issues, quickly and easily.

What our society now believes is that sex is a right. Marriage is “the next step” in a relationship. This is the problem of perspective of what Marriage means. A proper religious marriage is not equal to a “gay marriage.” And there is the rub.

 

[Tosk]

From an evolutionary perspective, no body parts were designed with a given function in mind.

So for example the brain is not designed with the purpose of finding the truth in mind. Natural selection has just simply allowed those with beneficial behavior to pass on their genes without any regard for the truth or falseness of the beliefs they hold. If that is the way the brain is designed, then you have a very good reason for doubting its effectiveness. If you believe the brain’s purpose is not truth finding, then you have a very good reason to doubt your belief that the brain’s purpose is not truth finding.

Again, evolutionarily speaking, there was no design. But aside from that, there are plenty of ways we use our bodies differently than what they were “designed” to do. For example, the human eyes were not “designed” to read from a computer screen (and there can be serious problems for those who use a computer a lot). But I don’t think that’s a good reason to say that it is wrong to use a computer.

The eye is “designed” for seeing – that is its purpose. There is nothing unnatural from the POV of natural law theory about using your eyes for seeing images on a computer screen. Now if you were to use your eye to try and catch a baseball, that would be contrary to the purpose of an eye.

We are able to make common sense observations about the nature or goal-directedness of our various body parts and tell what is their proper use and what kind of use would be contrary to their nature. In that case saying “sodomy is bad for you” is no different than saying “eating a barb wire sandwich is bad for you”.

 

[RosaryFan]

So I just got done with this thread and I am wondering something…

When someone who is agnostic or otherwise not Catholic asks me why the Church says missing Mass is important, or why masturbating is bad, or why I shouldn’t go around punching people in the face, I have something to tell them that makes logical sense. Examples:

1. 
   *]Murder: Hurts people. Lots of people
   *]Lust: Objectifies people. Forgets dignity
   *]Missing mass: Takes you out of the community, makes it easier to go astray
   *]Divorce: Splits up a family, doesn’t teach children integrity
   *]Abortion: Hurts moms, kills babies
   
   What do you tell someone about opposition to Gay marriage? Without quoting the Bible, why is it wrong?

1. 1. It goes against nature and is, therefore, perverse.
   2. The “couple” could not possibly be open to new life in their intimacy, which takes a huge chunk out of the purpose of intimacy as God has intended this gift.
   3. Jesus designed the sacraments and we have no authorty to change the design of any of His sacraments. This is also why women cannot be priests, because Jesus has designed the priesthood with men only. God’s design for the sacrament of marriage is one man and one woman.
   4. If society allows same sex marriage, what is to stop marriages of father/son; mother/son; mother/daughter; daugther/dog in future years? We cannot just willy-nilly allow any “union” to be a marriage. Marriage has to be defined. God has already done this for us - “one man and one woman”.
   Hope I was helpful.

 

[PrincessKatrina]

If marriage isn’t a legal union of two people whose primary purpose is the creation and raising of children, then what purpose does it play in furthering society? Why should the government be involved in this at all? From a strictly secular viewpoint, gay marriage isn’t wrong, it’s just pointless, as all marriages are if they are not intended for the creation and rearing of children.

If marriage is a legal union for the purpose of creating and raising children, why then is it legal for non-married women to get pregnant, for non-married women to give birth? If marriage’s sole purpose is for creating and raising children, then marriage is obsolete.

However, playing hypothetical here and assuming your “definition” is true, then why would “creation” of children be a requirement? There are countless orphans in the world, which countless homosexual couples would be very happy to adopt and raise with true parental caring and love. There is no room for these children in the families of fertile heterosexual couples. Their marriages are creating and raising children of their own. Why not allow us to marry and raise those poor, unwanted, parentless orphans?

1. If society allows same sex marriage, what is to stop marriages of father/son; mother/son; mother/daughter; daugther/dog in future years?

Excuse me? Slippery Slope much? I’m sorry, but seriously, no. Perhaps someday there will be people fighting to make those marriages legal. Perhaps someday, those marriages will be legal. However, that has nothing to do with allowing homosexual marriage, just as allowing interracial marriage had nothing to do with people’s current desire for allowing homosexual marriage. One does not necessarily lead to the other, period.

 

[newbetx]

If marriage is a legal union for the purpose of creating and raising children, why then is it legal for non-married women to get pregnant, for non-married women to give birth? If marriage’s sole purpose is for creating and raising children, then marriage is obsolete.

However, playing hypothetical here and assuming your “definition” is true, then why would “creation” of children be a requirement? There are countless orphans in the world, which countless homosexual couples would be very happy to adopt and raise with true parental caring and love. There is no room for these children in the families of fertile heterosexual couples. Their marriages are creating and raising children of their own. Why not allow us to marry and raise those poor, unwanted, parentless orphans?

Excuse me? Slippery Slope much? I’m sorry, but seriously, no. Perhaps someday there will be people fighting to make those marriages legal. Perhaps someday, those marriages will be legal. However, that has nothing to do with allowing homosexual marriage, just as allowing interracial marriage had nothing to do with people’s current desire for allowing homosexual marriage. One does not necessarily lead to the other, period.

Just what is marriage to GLBT’s?

Some form of legitimization of sex? As you say, that’s not required anymore. The consenting adult rule allows all sorts of fornication that used to be illegal. Unless, somehow, they feel guilty about it.

Adoption? Really? I wonder if the reason GLBT’s want get married is to adopt? I’d be interested to see real statistics on that. Single people can adopt, so that can’t really be it, can it?

Tax breaks. Insurance coverage. Hospital visits by partners without legal paperwork hassle that would be required. Community property rules. These are the things I hear most about for the purpose of gay marriage.

I would say that the idea of marriage has become, well, less than what it used to be. Marriage becomes a tool rather than a way of life. And certainly, many people get married for the wrong reasons, so it’s not an issue strictly with gays. Marriage is being redefined and many religious do not appreciate it. Nor should they.

So along that same line, yes we see that the redefinition of marriage has very much to do with gay marriage. Will it lead to marriage between people that really should not be married? Between people and animals? (“My dog/cat/horse has been better to me than any human! He/she deserves the same rights and protections as a human spouse!”) People and things? (androids, corporations, charities). So yes. It is a slippery slope, indeed.

We didn’t think that consensual sex rules would lead us to gay marriage, but it has. Just as we didn’t think easy availability to birth control would lead us to more abortions. When we tinker with the guidelines given to us by God, all sorts of rationalizations take place over time. Eventually, these rationalizations lead us to conclusions that aren’t really good for society. Of course, that, too would depend on what one’s definition of a good society might be. Since we don’t want to agree on what is a good an proper society, is it any wonder we can’t agree on gay marriage? And round and round we go.

 

[GW]

When it comes to the law, the stipulations of gay marriage are a total nightmare for heterosexuals with kids.

By law, the stipulations of the marriage contract, when written to include gays, are:

1. Temporal and easily dissolvable
2. Romance based
3. Assumed cohabitation

In short, gay marriage is a temporal cohabitation contract for any two humans that feel like living together for a while. And, when you no longer feel like it, you leave. No big deal.

Now, to any heterosexual married person raising kids, that legal code is big, big, big trouble. There are no legal protections there for the real needs of economic dependents (usually women) and children. There’s no mention of the family project anywhere. There’s no stipulation of permanence, which is necessary for the decades it takes to raise infants to adulthood. And there’s no stiff legal recourse that can be taken against the neglectful deserting spouse.

Gay marriage law simply doesn’t work for heterosexuals. And yet gay marriage law will be the law for everyone. Women and kids will suffer most via the continued scandal of legal spousal abandonment. The arguments in favor of legalized TRADITIONAL marriage are quite strong and nearly self-evident:

What are the best arguments for traditional marriage?
marriagenews.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/weekend-debate/

 

[mgull]

I thought this was a free country. Shouldn’t we allow anything to go since moral relativism seems to be running the country’s moral issues these days? Hold up i just thought of something, if moral relativism is running the country then I, being a tax payer, should have my say in what the culture deems ‘morally acceptable’…well, I don’t want gay marriage. When I have kids I don’t want them seeing people of the same sex MARRIED!!! How is this okay? All homosexuality is lust, bottom line, and it’s really damaging to a soul’s eternal life for the simple fact that it COULD lead someone to hell. Now i think the only answer to this problem is love. People, when it is prudent, need to be told how dangerous homosexuality is (and so no one deems me homophobic, in my opinion i think it’s on the same level with having sex before marriage, or masturbating for that matter).
If you want the answer to the question of this post in the strictest sense then here it is: ‘gay’ is wrong because our Creator says it is, just like every other sin committed against him.

On a side note, there is a woman that i work with who has adopted two kids with her “partner.” In my opinion, and i submit to the authority of Holy Roman Church on this if i’m wrong, i simply don’t think there is anything wrong with this insofar as they are not engaged in homosexuality and needless to say not married either.