Why Homosexual Unions are Wrong

[bmonk]

Interesting point, and almost begs the question whether gay marriage, where a child is to be procured via conception, should intrinsically be a union of three (or four under some scenarios)?

Perhaps. But then we are back in the days of polygamy (or polyandry) or even group marriages–say two gay men, plus an egg-donor mother and a womb-donor surrogate mother. . . .

But then, this is exactly the sort of thing that advocates of same-gender unions deny will happen. It’s not a slippery slope. . . . Of course not!

 

[bmonk]

I haven’t been able to find a news article to verify it, but I recall seeing something a few weeks or months back saying that at least one gay person would not be satisfied with just being able to marry his partner with a civil ceremony. He would only be satisfied when he can force the Archbishop of New York to marry them in the Cathedral.

Which means to me that he will only be satisfied when everyone agrees with him on marriage–and that he really wants the sacramental nature and the Church’s blessing on what we see as something that is not at all a marriage, a union of man and woman that has been blessed by God so that we can “be fruitful and multiply”, as Genesis 1 says.

 

[bmonk]

Originally Posted by HabemusFrancis
Am I pretty much on mark? I know there are other reasons to forbid it, yet this seems to me the most important…

If they have Gods blessing, who are you to judge? I think you people need to start minding your own business.

Isn’t that the question–whether they have God’s blessing as a marriage? We say, no–they cannot have a marriage, because their union lacks an essential element. They may have a friendship, or a relationship of some other kind, but it is not a marriage, and cannot be blessed as such.

 

[bmonk]

If your main argument is because of children, this is not a good argument. Many many gay men and lesbians do not desire to have or raise children. There are other arguments that better " hold water".

And yet that alone shows that they are not intending marriage–since by its nature marriage is oriented towards the children, and must be open to children.

 

[bmonk]

I am uncomfortable with it but that is me. I would not use the word “depraved”. Would you then call adultery depraved too? It is also a sexual sin.

On your reference to my reasoning, please read the post I was responding too.

Yes, adultery is depraved. It is one of the original “big three” mortal sins, for which the public penitence was designated, along with murder and apostacy.

 

[DrTaffy]

How could Mary pose as Jesus’ mother when she is literally the Mother of God? And Joseph is considered a “foster father”, which means that he was a parent to Jesus as well.

Exactly - just because their relationship did not involve sex does not mean that they were not married, nor that they were posing as parents.

Comparing their stable relationship to a gay marriage doesn’t really work.

I didn’t. I just used their example to illustrate why a relationship without sex needn’t call for scare quotes around the word ‘marriage’, nor mean that they are ‘posing’ as parents.

 

[Rau]

I didn’t. I just used their example to illustrate why a relationship without sex needn’t call for scare quotes around the word ‘marriage’, nor mean that they are ‘posing’ as parents.

The quotes around marriage are not intended to scare, they are intended to flag the misuse of the word. And while marriage is inherently sexual, there can be marriages without it. Circumstances such as illnesses, and the exceptionally rare Josephite marriage come to mind.

 

[DrTaffy]

The quotes around marriage are not intended to scare, they are intended to flag the misuse of the word.

That’s what scare quotes are!

 

[Rau]

That’s what scare quotes are!

Well then, shouldn’t it be written as “scare” quotes?