Why not gay marriage?

[Samuel_Monosov]

Well it is a touchy situation but we must address it none the less.

It as an argument Gay “marriage” supporters bring up all the time. “It’s Natural” Even if it is Natural we Catholics call it original sin, that is the tendency inborn in us, due to the Fall of our first parents, to choose sin and disordered actions. That does not make it right. What is natural is what supports and defines nature as God created the natural world, and what can be known by observing the natural world. It amazes me how those who use Evolution as a benchmark by which they criticize religion and morality, and argue in favor of humans engaging in unnatural actions, do not seem to see the irony in that it is Evolution that gives is the explanation of the natural law on Species Preservation, which argues against homosexual activity or any other disordered activity that threatens survival of the species.

Natural activity is not the same as ethical activity. It may be the natural impulses of African ants, along with environmental conditions, that cause them to swarm and kill an infant. But we don’t praise the ants for acting within their nature and therefore acting ethically.

Besides, maybe it is within the nature of a gay man or woman to be attracted to the those of the same sex.

In any case, I can understand why Catholics think gay sex is wrong, and why they think gay marriage is unacceptable. That part makes sense.

What I don’t understand is why you think it’s bad for society, to the point of not allowing gays of a different religion to get married to each other under the law.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

It seems that the answer is “bluster”.

Disappointing. I really wanted to know what research has been done. If it’s already been established somehow that healthy gay couples will not provide a good environment for their adopted children, I’d like to know, so that I can spread the news to my friends and family, and actively oppose future adoptions by gay couples.

If anyone else knows what the evidence John’s hinting at is and if it exists, please let me know what it is.

 

[nordskoven]

Why not domestic partnerships? Why have homosexuals rejected domestic partnerships that would protect not only those in sexual contact but non-sexual households, like two single moms allying their households. Why this cultural predation? There never has been homosexual marriage excepting Nero, who “married” the slave boy who looked like the wife he kicked to death.
GET OFF MY CULTURE! STOP CULTURAL PREDATION!

Marriage, the first sacrament from Genesis 2, exalts the woman, who is approached by her suitor at her residence. This is a pro-woman sacrament, and protects that most delicate social integration, that of female to male with the presumed end of child rearing. You can’t integrate male and male. What’s the challenge? You can’t integrate female and female. What’s the special point? GET OFF MY CULTURE! STOP CULTURAL PREDATION!

The latter days will be as in the days of Noah, people being given in marriage–profane marriage. Noah alone had not polluted his “generation.” Are we there yet? I’d invest in tuxedo rentals because there will, as predicted, be profane marriage. But all the marriage outfits won’t a wedding make. GET OFF MY CULTURE! STOP CULTURAL PREDATION!

 

[SwissGuard25]

Natural activity is not the same as ethical activity. It may be the natural impulses of African ants, along with environmental conditions, that cause them to swarm and kill an infant. But we don’t praise the ants for acting within their nature and therefore acting ethically.

Besides, maybe it is within the nature of a gay man or woman to be attracted to the those of the same sex.

In any case, I can understand why Catholics think gay sex is wrong, and why they think gay marriage is unacceptable. That part makes sense.

What I don’t understand is why you think it’s bad for society, to the point of not allowing gays of a different religion to get married to each other under the law.

O okay.
It’s bad for society because it isn’t natural and such behaviour should not be an introduced and approved action for our kids

 

[John21652]

Natural activity is not the same as ethical activity. It may be the natural impulses of African ants, along with environmental conditions, that cause them to swarm and kill an infant. But we don’t praise the ants for acting within their nature and therefore acting ethically.

Ants and other animals in nature act acording to their natures, as you point out. We don’t ascribe the notion of morality to their behaviours, other than to say nature itself is moral. Human ethical behaviour is a result of choice, or Free Will, as we Catholics often talk about. What is ethical is not simply natural impulses either. If that were the case, stealing, even murder, could be described as ethical if natural impulses are allowed as normal. Ethics is the study of morality and morality involves the formation of a moral system, which, by definition, constrains human behaviour to those aspects which are considered normal. That’s why theft, murder and even homosexual sex is ruled out as being immoral.

Besides, maybe it is within the nature of a gay man or woman to be attracted to the those of the same sex.

Which, if it is true, does not make the homosexual behaviour normal, or moral.

In any case, I can understand why Catholics think gay sex is wrong, and why they think gay marriage is unacceptable. That part makes sense.

That’s good, if you get that. It really is just common sense and doesn’t need a religious edict to be correct.

What I don’t understand is why you think it’s bad for society, to the point of not allowing gays of a different religion to get married to each other under the law.

For one thing it devalues the very institution of marriage. It does away with all the basic criteria which defines what marriage is and is for. It also splits society into classes, or sects, or distinguishable sections, however you want to phrase it, based on personal preferences and nothing more and fragments society in the process. One very obvious feature of all societies down through the ages has been a common morality, sometimes described as the very glue which binds people together. Break that and your society begins to fragment and fall apart. Books have been written about it.

A very important aspect to this whole debate and one which flows on from that last point is that the morality of the Catholic Church is based on Natural Law. It is an objective code of ethics which is largely based on what human nature is. It tells us what we ought and ought not to do as a species if we wish to thrive. Being objective, its principles are universal and mind independent, which means its principles hold true for all people, all the time and in all places and times. It applies to all peoples regardless of race and religion. That’s why the principles of it are enunciated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution. Same for other western nations as well. It would be hypocritical of the Church to say, OK, let us ban homosexual marriage, but you guys do what you want. That would mean abandoning the objectivity of the moral code upon which society was built. Western civilisation was built on those Natural Law principles. To undermine them means to allow a subjective morality to creep into society and which will undermine it a piece at a time.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

It would be hypocritical of the Church to say, OK, let us ban homosexual marriage, but you guys do what you want.

Not necessarily. If the Church’s stance on gay marriage were one of discipline, like going to Church on Sunday, then Catholic Bishops could say “We don’t recognize your marriage in the Church, but we won’t try to pass laws about it.” Unless you support passing laws about going to mass on Sunday. Do you?

Here’s another example, that does get a bit into natural law, but is firmly within the nature of the sacraments: marriage. Marriage, if valid, can’t end, and people who were married validly can’t remarry. But non-Catholics remarry all the time, according to the State, and I am not aware of any Catholic that wants to make these second marriages illegal. Are you one of these?

That’s an example where marriage didn’t occur, according to the Catholic Church, but the Catholics don’t try to stop the State from calling it marriage.

But then there’s another real possibility. You could be entirely right, and gay marriage might be harmful to the fabric of our society. It might be a firm violation of the natural law. In which case, there will be empirically measurable bad consequences to allowing gay marriage and gay adoption.

I’m not smart enough or interested enough to bother with the involved and esoteric natural law arguments. Gay marriage is already legal in many places (California, for example!). Soon there will be evidence for your position, if you are correct.

And if you are correct, and the evidence shows this, I will change my position.

You claim this evidence already exists; I can’t find it. I wonder what it is.

 

[John21652]

It seems that the answer is “bluster”.

Disappointing. I really wanted to know what research has been done. If it’s already been established somehow that healthy gay couples will not provide a good environment for their adopted children, I’d like to know, so that I can spread the news to my friends and family, and actively oppose future adoptions by gay couples.

If anyone else knows what the evidence John’s hinting at is and if it exists, please let me know what it is.

Read todays news - Gay couple lose son over child sex fears.

This is what the gay adoption protagonists and all who fall under their spell would subject children to. One big dangerous experiment.

Try not to puke.

 

[Nate13]

More accusations of laziness. No evidence offered. Maybe because the evidence does not exist?

In my opinion they are living lives that are objectively irrational. For someone to day after day deny the obvious purpose of their bodies as gay couples do is all the evidence I need as to why they would not present the best environment to raise children. And its different from other irrationalities because if they were to stop living a homosexual lifestyle it would split up their family which would not be good for the child.

I’d also add that you ask for evidence that you can easily observe for yourself and does not need polls or studies. God, evolution, or whatever you believe in has designed it so that life is only created by way of a male and female coming together. How is it not just common sense that it is apparent a heterosexual couple provides the best home for a child? This is not overwhelming evidence by any means but it seems to just be common sense.

You should be asking gay couples for evidence that the design of nature is arbitrary, and whether its two males, two females, or a male-female couple is not important. Nature has time and time again proven that it is the way it is for a reason, and in my opinion it deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven differently.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

This is what the gay adoption protagonists and all who fall under their spell would subject children to. One big dangerous experiment.

This is not a study. Can you find a study? Can you find a relevant study?

Do you know what these words mean?

… talk about lack of common sense…

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

In my opinion they are living lives that are objectively irrational. For someone to day after day deny the obvious purpose of their bodies as gay couples do is all the evidence I need as to why they would not present the best environment to raise children. And its different from other irrationalities because if they were to stop living a homosexual lifestyle it would split up their family which would not be good for the child.

I’d also add that you ask for evidence that you can easily observe for yourself and does not need polls or studies. God, evolution, or whatever you believe in has designed it so that life is only created by way of a male and female coming together. How is it not just common sense that it is apparent a heterosexual couple provides the best home for a child? This is not overwhelming evidence by any means but it seems to just be common sense.

You should be asking gay couples for evidence that the design of nature is arbitrary, and whether its two males, two females, or a male-female couple is not important. Nature has time and time again proven that it is the way it is for a reason, and in my opinion it deserves the benefit of the doubt until proven differently.

This is an interesting counter-argument. It provides a compelling case for Catholic opposition of adopting only to straight couples. The case of common sense.

One of the meanings of common sense is that it is common: it is shared by the majority of humanity.

Currently, about half of America does not share your common sense. I am part of that half. Maybe this is not really common sense, but rather a flawed but comfortably familiar sense of things once held by a majority, comparable to when, in the past, slavery was considered ethical, or now, when abortion is considered ethical? Neither slavery nor abortion is ethical, but people find it more comfortable to hold to these views, and this may seem like common sense.

I suppose another possibility is that common sense is falling apart in our modern world. If this is the case, I have fallen pray to modernism, and no longer share your common sense. Maybe there is another means through which to articulate and defend your views, means that are more in line with my current sense of things?

Kreeft and Beckwith have been successful doing this for the abortion debate.

 

[edwest2]

Alright, the contraception question I asked you answered. That made some sense, so I can imagine why you don’t like gay activity or why you don’t do gay marriage.

But what about people who aren’t Catholic? They get divorced and do all kinds of other things that you don’t agree with. Why can’t two men get together and the state can call it marriage or whatever else they like? They do this sort of thing anyway about divorce, with a lot less arguments and protests from you guys.

Why should you care if other religions want to recognize gay marriage?

What about gay adoption? Why not allow it for limited cases, to see what effect it has, and if its a good idea overall, or not?

Why is that some in the gay community say that government should get out of the marriage business and then that same government is asked to give legal recognition to gay marriage?

When gay adoption cases go to court, at least in the US, an expert must convince the court that a negative result is very to highly unlikely. Children are very malleable and such an arrangement should not be reduced to an experiment, or based on a guess. Obviously, like heterosexuals who want to adopt, a stringent process is required to convince the State and/or some State agency that there is ample reason to believe the couple would make good parents. The best interests of the child always take precedence since the child is uneducated compared to adult professionals, and does need their guidance.

Peace,
Ed

 

[John21652]

This is not a study. Can you find a study? Can you find a relevant study?

Do you know what these words mean?

… talk about lack of common sense…

No one said it was a study. I specifically stated it was “todays news”.
Did you read it? One child exposed to that is one too many.

Talk about lack of common sense…

Use your own sense, even if it isn’t common and do some reearch. You’re the one who supposedly needs the info.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

No one said it was a study. I specifically stated it was “todays news”.
Did you read it? One child exposed to that is one too many.

Heterosexuals do terrible things as well. Citing this article as any sort of evidence is worse than when the New York Times runs smear campaigns on the Catholic Church. It is worse than saying “Every priest is a pedophile, and every Bishop covers it up.” At least when people go on about pedophile priests, they can cite some studies or investigations that involve more than one or two people.

As a Catholic who (it seems) reads the secular media, you of all people should appreciate this point. The secular media hates you guys. Irrationally. Don’t go doing the same thing to other groups, now.

The question is about healthy gay couples and healthy straight couples. Clearly this particular case doesn’t qualify.

Use your own sense, even if it isn’t common and do some reearch. You’re the one who supposedly needs the info.

I’ve done the research. My conclusion is that there’s no reason not to adopt out to gays, and that those who refuse are either ignorant about how probability works (like you seem to be), ignorant about society, or are bigots.

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

Why is that some in the gay community say that government should get out of the marriage business and then that same government is asked to give legal recognition to gay marriage?

This may be because the gay community is not monolithic. I have gay friends, some of whom think that gays shouldn’t marry (`that’s a heterosexual thing’), some who think gays should be able to get married at church but the government should have nothing to do with marriage, and some who support legalizing gay marriage.

When gay adoption cases go to court, at least in the US, an expert must convince the court that a negative result is very to highly unlikely. Children are very malleable and such an arrangement should not be reduced to an experiment, or based on a guess. Obviously, like heterosexuals who want to adopt, a stringent process is required to convince the State and/or some State agency that there is ample reason to believe the couple would make good parents. The best interests of the child always take precedence since the child is uneducated compared to adult professionals, and does need their guidance.

That makes good sense. I support making sure that only the best members of society get to adopt.

 

[Nate13]

This is an interesting counter-argument. It provides a compelling case for Catholic opposition of adopting only to straight couples. The case of common sense.

One of the meanings of common sense is that it is common: it is shared by the majority of humanity.

Current public opinion is merely a snap shot. Common sense is not dictated by whatever the current fad of the day is. Anyone who ignores history can not claim to have common sense. Would you ever consider it common sense for someone to embrace slavery of blacks? That was at one point the majority opinion as well. In short I do not approve of you definition of common sense. Common sense relies on more than the opinion of those who are currently alive. Common sense looks to the common truths accepted by all of our ancestors as well.

Currently, about half of America does not share your common sense. I am part of that half. Maybe this is not really common sense, but rather a flawed but comfortably familiar sense of things once held by a majority, comparable to when, in the past, slavery was considered ethical, or now, when abortion is considered ethical? Neither slavery nor abortion is ethical, but people find it more comfortable to hold to these views, and this may seem like common sense.

Yet again, your basing your idea of common sense on the whims of who is currently alive and able to raise their hands. I cringe at the thought of applying your idea of common sense to Nazi Germany.

I suppose another possibility is that common sense is falling apart in our modern world. If this is the case, I have fallen pray to modernism, and no longer share your common sense. Maybe there is another means through which to articulate and defend your views, means that are more in line with my current sense of things?

Kreeft and Beckwith have been successful doing this for the abortion debate.

Common sense does not fall apart. People fall apart when they forsake common sense and cling to a rampant egotism that disregards history.

 

[vsedriver]

I don’t know how important a straight couple is to the health of a child. We will soon have some insight into this question, because statistics will become available in the next decade or so.

 

[vsedriver]

The question is about healthy gay couples and healthy straight couples. Clearly this particular case doesn’t qualify.

How could any healthy gay couple wish to deprive a child of experiencing a mommy and a daddy just to experience being a parent? The real sacrifice is done for the sake of the child not for the wishes of the parent. No truly loving gay person would deprive a child of the opportunity to have a mommy and a daddy.

22"No!" the other woman shouted. “He was your son. My baby is alive!”
“The dead baby is yours,” the first woman yelled. “Mine is alive!”
They argued back and forth in front of Solomon, 23until finally he said, “Both of you say this live baby is yours. 24Someone bring me a sword.”
A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, 25"Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him."
26"Please don’t kill my son," the baby’s mother screamed. “Your Majesty, I love him very much, but give him to her. Just don’t kill him.”

 

[Samuel_Monosov]

what about all the statistics we already have on children who are raised by a single parent?

Gay couples are not single parents.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Gay couples are not single parents.

They most certainly are, by any empirical biological definition. They are two single “parents” who combine, call each other “parents,” only one of whom has any biological relationship with any child.

Either the sperm are borrowed or purchased, or the eggs are borrowed or purchased.

(And yes, I am virulently opposed to the marketing of human body parts and functions, including when done by heterosexuals. For heterosexuals, surrogate motherhood, sperm banks, utilitarian mating with people other than one’s unitive heterosexual married partner, is also gravely evil.)

It may surprise a lot of people that some countries stereotyped as libertine by Americans are far more cautious about the manipulation of human biology than the USA is. The marketing of reproduction in this country is considered barbaric by the standards of some other developed countries. And I fully agree with that assessment.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I want them to be denied government funding if they will not adopt to healthy gay couples.

But, they only refuse to based on the belief that every child is entitled to a mother and a father. That is not “mindless” prejudice. That is a policy based on the best interests of the child, as opposed to the best interests of the putative adoptive couple. I don’t think it’s a fair conclusion to say that such discretion is “mindless.”

The KKK analogy breaks down because it is not logically tied to the child’s right to mother and father, but - like the gay couple scenario - the policy is motivated by the misguided ideal of what’s best for someone other than the child.

If the receipt of federal funds is tied to acceptance of the gay lifestyle, contrary to the dictates of well informed religious conscience - and backed by studies showing the healthiest environment for a child is one in which family consists of mother and father - why is this not coercive and in violation of the First Amendment guaranty of freedom of religion. It seems to me that tying funds to acceptance of a certain moral point of view is in effect violative of First Amendment freedom of religion.

There’s an article on Catholic Answers with citation to studies that establish the health of a child is significantly impacted by the lack of both father and mother figures - which is significatly absent in the same-sex couple. The link is here.

Although I am fairly certain that anecdotal evidence can be presented to show that some children are raised well in same-sex families, the studies show that overall, children have the best chance when raised in the context of a heterosexual marriage. Why subject children to a political experiment, when the studies to date reveal that children raised without a mother or father will suffer? Do we sacrifice these children on the altar of political correctness?

Pax Christi,
Robert