Why should marriage be preserved for a man and a woman?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
inocente said:
The white-supremacist logic of 50 years ago was that marriage between a black man and a white women was disordered for that very reason, since according to them the new life created wouldn’t be “racial pure”.

My post was gently suggesting that civil rights is an ongoing struggle, and our institutions are broken unless they reflect the primacy of the truth we hold to be self-evident, that all men [and women] are created equal.
Click to expand...
You are wrong.
 
Muze said:
Let’s be a bit more specific. Loving v. Virginia was about the right of a man and a woman to live together as a married couple. It wasn’t about a license or any right to have their union recognized by anyone.

The supreme court case cited Skinner v. Oklahoma, which said, that marriage and procreation are fundamental to the furtherance of the [human] race. Thus, the courts closely tied together marriage and procreation.

Homosexuals don’t procreate together, so they don’t fit under this court definition.

However, gays do already have the right to take vows together and to live together, which is the only elements of this that are actual “rights”, and no one is denying them any of that.
Click to expand...
Correct…

The right to marry and procreate is what Skinner vs Oklahoma stated and was lifted and incorporated into Loving vs Virginia.
 
tonyfrancis21 said:
Homosexuals don’t procreate, but they can bring up the children straight couples abort, or give up for adoption or put away in streets or garbage cans
Click to expand...
However,

There is evidence that homosexual rearing is not equivalent to heterosexual rearing.
 
estesbob said:
So can heterosexual couples-and heterosexuals can do so without exposing children to disordered sexual behavior.
Click to expand...
In America, there is increasingly more dis-order in hetero-sexual marriage than in other relationships.
 
CopticChristian said:
What is this disorder and where do you draw this information from?
Click to expand...
Please tell us one thing that is in order in America today.
Economy?, Politics, Industry? Judiciary? Education? Gun laws? Marriage? Catholic Clergy?
Catholic Nuns? War on Terrorism? Defence? Automobile Industry? Construction? Foreign policy?
Only in Modern America will anybody find children going to school with guns and shooting for fun, School teachers having sex with their under aged students, Catholic preists molesting alterboys, If you read news paper or watch TV daily, you will find the answers to your question.
 
CopticChristian said:
What is this disorder and where do you draw this information from?
Click to expand...
If you compile statistics for divorces, abortions, pre-marital sex, etc. in America for the last 25 years, you will be able to see answer to your question, and where America is heading to.
 
tonyrey said:
An excellent summary! What is your view?
Click to expand...
Not sure I could give you a precise answer. If I hear that two people are married and I know nothing about the two people or their culture other than knowing the people are paired there’s not much I could conclude.

As for myself, marriage is something I would be open to if I loved some one, felt that I could tolerate living with the person, didn’t think the person is trying to exploit me*], felt we could live healthy lives together, and satisfied a number of other conditions. It’s not something to which I attach a great deal of importance beyond the legal implications (see thread: What Good is Marriage for more information on my thoughts).
    • there is some popular misconception among people that I meet that I am wealthy. This has resulted in some unwelcomed and at time aggressive advances from some females that I think are after the financial security and lifestyle that they seem to believe that I could provide for them.
 
tonyrey said:
Are there any valid reasons why marriage should lose its unique status as a permanent bond between a man and a woman which is the basis of family life?
Click to expand...
Because a structure of the family is becoming less restrictive in today’s world, than it once was.

For example, in my own country (the United States), homosexual parenting is already a reality. Better to have homosexual parenting taking place within the context of wedlock, than outside of it, precisely in the name of the stability of family.

Predictably, I don’t think this question can be honestly explored, on either side, unless one is clear about where one stands regarding:

—whether homosexual contact should be occurring at all
–whether one is in favor of state recognized homosexual unions
–whether one is in favor of homosexual parenting

As far as I can tell, Tony – from a related thread – you are squarely against homosexual parenting, yet believe that one should have the right to engage in homosexual contact (that is, that it should not be illegal) and that it is okay for the state to recognize homosexual unions – with identical rights and privileges to marriage as regards the filing of one’s taxes, health benefits, and rights of inheritance – so long as they do not call them marriages.

I suspect you are already going farther than many Catholics would go, on this issue, particularly regarding the legitimacy of civil same sex unions, as something you are not willing to fight against.

My own position is that I am in favor of all of the above – having no particular problem with it – nor do I have a problem with calling a civil union between two men, and two women, a marriage. This is because marriage in my society is not a religious institution, but a civil one.

For a Catholic, marriage is a sacrament, with a man and a woman joined through God.

A civil marriage is not a sacrament and is not a marriage forged in the name of God; rather, it is about having one’s union recognized by the state.

Thus, I would no more use the phrase homosexual “marriage” (quotation marks added) than I would say civil “marriage”, and I think a religious believer is being inconsistent in adding quotation marks to the one, and not to the other, as – from the standpoint of a Catholic – marriage is a sacrament, and there is no such thing as “sacramental marriage” versus “non-sacramental marriage.”
 
Portofino said:
Are there any valid reasons why marriage should lose its unique status as a permanent bond between a man and a woman which is the basis of family life?
Click to expand...
A fait accompli is not a sound basis for morality! The welfare of the children is paramount. There is no guarantee that the extension of marriage to homosexuals will increase the stability of the family. In fact to call the relationship of two men or two women incapable of having children with their partner a “marriage” is a distortion of its meaning and will bring it into further disrepute judging by the number of people who already consider it old-fashioned and no more than an unnecessary scrap of paper invented by man.
Predictably, I don’t think this question can be honestly explored, on either side, unless one is clear about where one stands regarding:
Click to expand...
—whether homosexual contact should be occurring at all
–whether one is in favor of state recognized homosexual unions
–whether one is in favor of homosexual parenting
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, Tony – from a related thread – you are squarely against homosexual parenting, yet believe that one should have the right to engage in homosexual contact (that is, that it should not be illegal) and that it is okay for the state to recognize homosexual unions – with identical rights and privileges to marriage as regards the filing of one’s taxes, health benefits, and rights of inheritance – so long as they do not call them marriages.
Click to expand...
I suspect you are already going farther than many Catholics would go, on this issue, particularly regarding the legitimacy of civil same sex unions, as something you are not willing to fight against.
Click to expand...
My own position is that I am in favor of all of the above – having no particular problem with it – nor do I have a problem with calling a civil union between two men, and two women, a marriage. This is because marriage in my society is not a religious institution, but a civil one.
Click to expand...
For a Catholic, marriage is a sacrament, with a man and a woman joined through God.
Click to expand...
A civil marriage is not a sacrament and is not a marriage forged in the name of God; rather, it is about having one’s union recognized by the state.
Click to expand...
Thus, I would no more use the phrase homosexual “marriage” (quotation marks added) than I would say civil “marriage”, and I think a religious believer is being inconsistent in adding quotation marks to the one, and not to the other, as – from the standpoint of a Catholic – marriage is a sacrament, and there is no such thing as “sacramental marriage” versus “non-sacramental marriage.”
Click to expand...
I agree with your analysis of the issues at stake:

I don’t believe such practices as anal sex are necessary, hygienic or morally justified but if homosexuals are genuinely committed to each other I respect their right to live together in a cvil relationship with all the legal advantages of marriage.

I am opposed to the adoption of children by homosexuals because they are deliberately and needlessly deprived of a father or mother for the benefit of two adults. They will also be subjected in their own home to displays of intimate affection between two men or two women which most of them will find distasteful and unnatural because they know a normal family is not one-sided but created by two persons of the opposite sex who are in love with each other. Children are not prejudiced but more realistic than those who demand absolute equality in every respect regardless of the consequences for its victims who have no choice in the matter.
Click to expand...
 
There appears to be a Catholic obsession with very specific sexual acts. I question how healthy this obsession is.
 
epan said:
There appears to be a Catholic obsession with very specific sexual acts. I question how healthy this obsession is.
Click to expand...
It is as healthy as commenting on what you percieve to be an obsession.
 
CopticChristian said:
Epan, you have no right or privelege to correct my opinion. My opinion is not regional. IUt is my opinion.
Click to expand...
You are hilarious. Of course, I have the right to question your opinion. This is a discussion forum. When I call you out for being obviously wrong, just admit it. Then you might be more respected.
 
epan said:
There appears to be a Catholic obsession with very specific sexual acts. I question how healthy this obsession is.
Click to expand...
Well, as Pope JPII taught, as the sex goes, so goes the marriage (see TOB), and as the marriage goes, so goes society. As society goes, so goes the nation. And as the nation goes, so goes the world.

So sex and its morality are, quite simply, extremely important in the entire scheme of the world, according to Catholic theology.

Oh, and I’m glad you’re online so I can say: thank you for serving and keeping us free.
 
epan said:
There appears to be a Catholic obsession with very specific sexual acts. I question how healthy this obsession is.
Click to expand...
I guess one who is ignorant of Church teaching could come to that conclusion
 
Portofino said:
…Better to have homosexual parenting taking place within the context of wedlock, than outside of it, precisely in the name of the stability of family. …
Click to expand...
I thought the argument advanced by gay marriage advocates was that children had no relationship to marriage?

In any event – you seem to be saying that any marriage is better than no marriage (when it comes to raising children). Or have I stretched your argument too far?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top